0 Patents Act 1970 39 of 1970 Section 150 Security for Costs - Sortby Old - Court Privy Council - Year 1889 - Judgments | SooperKanoon Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Sorted by: old Court: privy council Year: 1889

Jan 17 1889 (PC)

Devachand and anr. Vs. Hirachand Kamaraj

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-17-1889

Reported in : (1889)ILR13Bom449

Bardwood, J.1. The decision of this appeal turns upon the construction to be put upon Clause 3 of Section 34 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1879, in reference to a promissory note not stamped at the time of its execution, in respect of which the Court, in which a suit has been brought upon such note, has levied the proper stamp duty under the Act together with a penalty of ten times the amount of the proper duty. The question is whether, after a Subordinate Judge has so admitted the note in evidence, he or his successor in office can, in a later stage of the same suit, question the propriety of such admission and treat the instrument as inadmissible.2. The present suit was brought on three promissory notes, all of which were unstamped when the plaint was filed. At the time when the issues were settled, the Subordinate Judge levied what he understood to be the proper duties on the notes, which he regarded as bonds within the meaning of the Act, together with ten times the amount of those duti...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1889 (PC)

Kessowji Damodar Jairam Vs. Luckmidas Ladha and Khimji Jairam

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-30-1889

Reported in : (1889)ILR13Bom404

Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think this Court has no jurisdiction, and the order appealed from must be confirmed. The object of this suit, as set forth in the plaint, is to have the accounts taken of the Zanzibar business. The defendant, who was manager there, is charged with misappropriating money. Reliance is placed upon the fact that certain sums of money, which form part of the total amount with which he is charged, were misappropriated by him by means of certain misrepresentations made or directions given in Bombay. We do not think that that is sufficient to give this Court jurisdiction. The mere fact that the fraud in connection with certain items in the account was effected in Bombay would not justify a change of venue. It is possible that the case would be tried here in a manner more satisfactory to the plaintiff than it can be elsewhere: but that is not a matter for our consideration. The simple question is, whether such a material part of the cause of action has arisen in Bomba...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //