Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 43 insertion of new section 104a Court: uttaranchal Page 1 of about 1 results (0.713 seconds)

Upendra Singh Maniyari Vs. Jagmohan Singh and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

..... appeal arising from an application or proceeding, instituted or commenced whether prior or subsequent to the commencement of the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act, 1981, shall lie to the high court from a judgment or order of one judge of the high court, made in the exercise of jurisdiction ..... before the high court immediately before the commencement of the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act, 1981, shall be heard and disposed of as if that subsection had not been enacted.the aforesaid amendment necessitated a further amendment of rule 5, contained in section c, of chapter viii, of the 'rules of the ..... 1972 and 1975) deserves a reference. in the statement of objects and reasons recorded in the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act, 1981, it was inter alia noticed, that despite various measures taken earlier, the number of pending cases in the high court at allahabad .....

Rajendra Prasad Nautiyal and Etc. Vs. Krishna Kumar Bangwal and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2007Utr1

..... united nations. it is notable that mathew, j. observed in indira gandhi air 1975 sc 2299 (p. 513, see p. 128, para 303) (at p. 2378 of air):if the amending body really exercised judicial power, that power was exercised in violation of the principles of natural justice of audi alteram partem. even if a power is given to a body ..... appears to be done. they have a duty to proceed in a way, which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. they have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.'12. in the case smt. maneka gandhi v. union of india manu/sc/0133/1978 : [1978]2scr621 , the apex ..... . the judgment in the case of menaka gandhi (supra) has been followed in the case of west bengal electricity regulatory commission v. c.e.s.c. ltd. manu/sc/0859/2002 : air2002sc3588 , relying upon the case of mrs. maneka gandhi v. union of india manu/sc/0133/1978 : [1978]2scr621 as under para 100a of air:the right of audi .....

Smt. Pooja Rajput Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : AIR2010Utr24

..... being quoted hereunder:sub-clause (iii-a) of clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 95 of u.p. panchayat raj act (as inserted by amending act no. xxi of 1998).95 (1) the state government may:(a) to (f)....(g) remove a pradhan, up-pradhan or member of a gram panchayat or a joint committee ..... . article 243-o(b) of the constitution of india is a mandatory and totally binding provision and any provision made by state legislature in contravention of the aforesaid provisions is patently illegal too. in fact, this article of the constitution has prohibited the state legislature from enacting any law for settling the election disputes of elected 'gram pradhan' except by ..... arguments shri arvind vashishtha cited the judgments reported in manu/sc/8718/2006 : air 2007 sc 903, state of himachal pradesh v. surinder singh banolta manu/up/0359/2002 : 2002 (3) awc 1761 : air 2002 all 257 hoti lal v. state of u.p.6. on the other hand shri s. k. mandal, learned counsel for, respondent no. 5 argued that at .....

Kamal Jora and Another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another

Court : Uttaranchal

..... of india. such an order cannot stand. therefore, the writ petitions were allowed, and the orders of dissolution were quashed. 12. the state moved a letter patent appeal against the said order before the division bench of this court. the learned judge of the division bench dismissed the appeal of the state and upheld the order ..... for its first meeting and no longer: provided that a municipality shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before its dissolution. (2) no amendment of any law for the time being in force shall have the effect of causing dissolution of a municipality at any level, which is functioning immediately before such ..... uttarakhandurban development section-ino.: 682/iv-i-2011-1(57) 2010dehradun : dated 29thjune, 2011public notice under section 3 sub-section (2) of uttar pradesh municipal corporation act, 1959 (u.p. act no. 2 of 1959) (as applicable in the state of uttarakhand) read with article 243 u of part 2, it is the considered opinion of the state .....

Ramesh Chandra (Sri) and anr. Vs. Ist Additional District Judge and or ...

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : 2005(1)ARC812

..... shall be inserted. 'cantonment' shall be inserted.11. further by virtue section 3 of the cantonment (extension of rent control laws) act, 1957 has been extended to all the cantonments in the in the u.p.12. the aforesaid amendment came up for interpretation in ruchira vinayak (smt.) and ors. v. iind additional district judge, meerut 2004 (1) a.r. ..... of certiorari. if it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. as to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the high court under article 227 of the constitution also, it has been held in surya devi rai that the ..... subordinate courts within the boundary of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.'54. in the case of bhola nath verma v. vth adj, kanpur nagar reported in 2002 (1) arc page 78, the bench of allahabad has held as under:-'the another decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-landlord are reported in 2001 ( .....