Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 66 amendment of section 126 Court: allahabad Page 6 of about 306 results (0.100 seconds)

Musammat Haydari Begum Vs. Syed Jawad Ali Shah

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.820

..... no special rules regulating the procedure under section 491, there is, however, a general rule made by this high court in exercise of the powers conferred by parliament, letters patent and acts of the indian legislature, which appears to be decisive of the point in issue. rule 8, chapter i of these rules of court runs as follows:no application to the ..... in presidency towns to, make directions of the nature of a habeas corpus within the limits of their ordinary original civil jurisdiction. in the year 1923 the code was amended and by the amendment all the high courts in india were given power to take action under section 491, within the limits of their appellate criminal jurisdiction. it seems clear, therefore, that .....

In Re: B, an Advocate

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1935All1037; 159Ind.Cas.653

..... the repeal can take place only by a necessary implication, if such a position were tenable. now, the distinction between clause 8, letters patent, and section 10, bar councils act, is that under the former the high court is 'empowered to remove or suspend from practice on reasonable cause...advocates', which undoubtedly confers ..... , unless there is unanimity. the answer must depend on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the bar councils act. the preamble indicates the intention of the legislature to consolidate and amend the law relating to legal practitioners entitled to practice in such courts. there is no section which confers special jurisdiction ..... on high courts for dealing with oases of misconduct. nor is there anything in the body of the act or in the schedule appended thereto which would suggest that clauses 8 or 27, letters patent .....

Hindustan Bone Mills Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Trade Tax

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [2006]144STC117(All)

..... or quashing (wholly or in part), such assessment, levy, collection, penalty or demand and such assessment or order becomes inconsistent with the provisions of the principal act as amended by this act, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of any party to the proceeding or the commissioner of sales tax may by september 30, 1992 ..... and should be decided accordingly. since the tribunal has wrongly treated the applications as review applications and rejected the same as barred by limitation, there was a patent error in the order of tribunal and deserves to be rectified. tribunal has rightly rectified the order dated 25.10.1994 and held that the application under ..... section 17 (3) and in view of limitation contemplated under section 17 (3) of act no. 8 of 1992, and under section 22 of the act applications were not barred by time, thus, rejecting the application as barred by limitation was patent error and required rectification. prayer was also made that the applications moved on 20.8 .....

Dr. Naresh Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3745; 2005(4)ESC2489

..... the constitution of india, specifically when academic council and the executive council in control of the university on date have been reconstituted by the amending acts of 1951 read with the amending act of 1965, the constitutionality whereof has been upheld by the hon'ble supreme court only after coming to the conclusion that aligarh muslim university ..... done under the resolution of the admission committee dated 10.1.2005, the resolution of academic council dated 15.1.2005 and the decision of the executive council dated 19.1.2005. it is contended that. section 2(1) and section 5(2)(c) of the amending act have the effect of virtually over ruling the judgment of the ..... students on the basis of religion only and any decision in that regard, being hit by article 29(2) of the constitution of india, would be patently illegal and without jurisdiction.63. the objection with regard to locus and the writ petitions having been infructuous because of subsequent developments may also be dealt with.64 .....

Ram Sarup Singh and anr. Vs. Mohan Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1939All672

..... court although the defence was that defendants 1 and 2 were sons of the sister of kumar singh and therefore the nearest reversioners under the hindu law of inheritance amendment act. the finding of fact is not now in contest. the other portion of the relief was that there should be a declaration that the deed of relinquishment which ..... of gift to defendants 1 and 2 was therefore invalid and the claim of the plaintiffs was allowed. against that decree of the learned single judge, this letters patent appeal has been brought and the question before us is whether under the circumstances of this case mt. asumedha kunwar acquired adverse possession as a hindu widow for herself ..... counsel for the plaintiffs. we consider that on this view of the case the decree of the lower appellate court was correct.14. accordingly we allow this letters patent appeal and we set aside the decree of the learned single judge in favour of the plaintiffs and we restore the decree of the lower appellate court with costs .....

Harish Chandra Bajpai and anr. Vs. Triloki Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1955All74

..... and the tribunal would have had no power to allow it if it had been asked for.'6. in the case before us, the petition for amendment purported to be under section 83(3) of the act and the advocate member of the tribunal held that it did come under section 83(3) though he expressed an alternative opinion also. the chairman ..... have been right or the tribunal may have been wrong, but this writ application neither raises a question of jurisdiction nor can it be said that it is such a patent error or the decision is so palpably erroneous that we can interfere under article 226 of the constitution.9. in the circumstances we do not consider that this is a ..... or on questions of law. a mere wrong decision cannot be corrected by a writ of certiorari. it must be a patent error before we can interfere.8. the application was made under section 83(3), representation of the people act, 1951. the claim made was that by that application no fresh grounds were being introduced in the elect-ion petition but .....

Bajoria Halwasiya Service Station Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and a ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [1970]26STC108(All)

..... can derive no assistance from that case.19. this being the situation the assessment order impugned in this petition suffers clearly from a patent illegality, based as it is upon the notification of 1st june, 1963, as amended by the notification of 18th june, 1965. the assessment order is, therefore, liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari.20 ..... to adjudicate upon the third contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned notification is ultra vires being beyond the scope of section 3-a of the act. we, therefore, express no opinion on that point.21. in the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. a writ of certiorari shall issue to quash the ..... payment under it. the petitioner also deposited a certain amount by way of sales tax.3. when the proceedings for assessment under the u.p. sales tax act for the assessment year 1967-68 commenced the petitioner claimed exemption from tax in respect of the payment received by it from the deputy director on the ground that .....

Aditya NaraIn Singh Vs. Tulshi Prasad NaraIn Singh and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1934All979

..... the judges were also named therein. thus in 1887 when the clause of the letters patent was in force and had not in any way been amended by the governor-general in council, it was considered that there should be at least one chief justice and five judges in this court. but ..... a chief justice and as many judges not exceeding fifteen as her majesty may from time to time think fit to appoint. there was no minimum fixed under that act. but the letters patent granted to this high court in clause (2) laid down that the high court shall consist of a chief justice and five judges and the chief justice and ..... by the appointment of a judge who was neither a barrister nor an advocate and did not fulfil the requirements of section 101 sub-section 2, government of india act, a validating act (12 and 13, george v. c. 20), had to be passed under which a person who had been a pleader of one of the high courts was deemed to .....

Manna Lal Vs. Mst. Chhotka Bibi and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1964All552

..... while his document was pending before the joint registrar, the u. p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act (u. p. act no. xiv of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the act) was enforced from the 13th of november. 1962. section 3 of the act provides as follows:'3(1) no appeal, arising from a suit or proceeding instituted or commenced, whether ..... delay in filing the deficit court fee be condoned and the appeal be treated as having been filed within time. the learned counsel for the appellant was permitted to amend the valuation of the appeal mentioned in the memorandum and by a separate order of the same date, the appeal was admitted and notice ordered to issue thereon to ..... be paid on the memorandum of the special appeal was not paid.9. section 4 of the court fees act, as amended in this state provides;'4. no document of any of the kinds specified in the first or second schedule to this act an-nexed, as chargeable with fees, shall be filed, ex-hibited or recorded in, or shall be .....

M.S. Hasan and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

..... judge, nainital (supra) has specifically lad down that ceiling limits are to be determined with reference to the enforcement of uttar pradesh imposition of ceiling on land holdings (amendment) act, 1972 i.e. 8 th june, 1973. therefore, what logically follows is that the nature of the land, for the purposes of exclusion from the ceiling limits, ..... p. (amendment) act no. 18 of 1973 came into force. a transfer, therefore, made after january 24, 1971 which is designed to serve as a cloak for retention of a right or interest of the transferor in the ostensibly transferred land in excess of the ceiling area, even on or after june 8, 1973, will be patently not in ..... the case of d.n. singh versus civil judge, reported in air 1999 sc 2264 and escorts farms ltd. versus commissioner, kumaun division, nainital and others reported in 2005 (98) rd 158 (sc).13. he submits that unless it was demonstrated that in the earlier proceedings initiated against kishwar jahan, an conscientious decision was taken qua .....