Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Court: chennai Year: 1987

Sep 09 1987 (HC)

Rajalakshmi Ammal Vs. Duraiswamy Gounder and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-09-1987

Reported in : (1988)2MLJ457

..... average between 40% of the gross income, which was the law in force under the act before its amendment by the act 17 of 1980 and 25% of the gross produce as laid down by the amendment act 17 of 1980. the plaintiff has preferred a letters patent appeal against this portion of the judgment and the same is pending. no doubt, the ..... provisions of the act xxiv of 1956 as it stood prior to the amendment under the act 17 of 1980 was not applicable to the cultivation of ..... sugarcane crops. but, the principle underlying the act has to be kept in mind .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1987 (HC)

Arcot N. Veeraswami Vs. M.G. Ramachandran and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-1987

Reported in : AIR1988Mad192

..... shall take steps to hold the election for the board of trustees in accordance with the pachaiyappa's trust scheme. by an amending act, cl. (2) of section 3 which provided for the constitution of a c6mmittee of management was amended providing that the committee shall consist of such -number of the officers of the government not exceeding five as the government may ..... suo motu it was exercising a legislative power. it is true that the court's power to amend, vary and modify the rules in the code of civil procedure is in exercise of the powers under art. 226 of the constitution and the letters patent in respect of the procedure of the high court on the original side and it is exercise ..... the bill. it may also be mentioned, as pointed out earlier, that the writ petition itself was posted for final disposal on 16-12-198.6. since the principal act as amended by act 14 of 1986 was to come to an end on 22-12-1986, the writ petition was adjourned with a direction to post it some time in the end .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 1987 (HC)

Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Represented by the C ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-1987

Reported in : (1988)ILLJ177Mad

..... was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. the last aspect has assumed considerable importance after the introduction of section 11a in the industrial disputes act by industrial disputes (amendment) act, 1971 with effect from december 15, 1971. it confers power on the tribunal not only to examine the order of discharge or dismissal on ..... union of journalists case (supra) the supreme court states thus : (1985)illj519sc : '..... therefore, while conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the state government to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood as a rule, that adjudication of demands made by workmen should be left to the tribunal to decide. s. ..... of such adjudication and refuse to refer the matter. if on the other hand, the government comes to the conclusion that the claim made is so patently frivolous or that the admitted facts are so glaringly against the workmen, which would not warrant a trial or adjudication by a court or tribunal, then .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 12 1987 (HC)

The Management of Binny Ltd. (B and C Mills) Vs. the Govt. of Tamil Na ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-12-1987

Reported in : (1989)ILLJ180Mad

..... was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. the last aspect has assumed considerable importance after the introduction of section 11a in the industrial disputes act by industrial disputes (amendment) act, 1971 with effect from december 15, 1971. it confers power on the tribunal not only to examine the order of discharge or dismissal on ..... union of journalists case (supra) the supreme court states thus : (1985)illj519sc : '..... therefore, while conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the state government to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood as a rule, that adjudication of demands made by workmen should be left to the tribunal to decide. s. ..... of such adjudication and refuse to refer the matter. if on the other hand, the government comes to the conclusion that the claim made is so patently frivolous or that the admitted facts are so glaringly against the workmen, which would not warrant a trial or adjudication by a court or tribunal, then .....

Tag this Judgment!


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