Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 311 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.(J.& P. Coats ... on 7 May, 1953

State Of Maharashtra vs Kusum Charudutt Bharma Upadhye on 17 November, 1980

92. The case of N.S. Thread Co. v. James Chudwick & Bros., has been distinguished by the said Full Bench on the ground that the jurisdiction which the single Judge of the High Court was exercising in that case was the jurisdiction under ordinary law and not under a constitutional law, namely, the Constitution of India. The argument was that if the powers of the High, Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were also to be made subject to the rules of the High Court and the Letters Patent, these powers could be altered or affected by ordinary legislation. It was on this ground that the said Full Bench held that Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution contained an inbuilt power to frame rules for the purposes of these two Articles. With respect, we are unable to accept this line of reasoning.
Bombay High Court Cites 192 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

The Employees' State Insurance ... vs Shanmugha Theatres And Ors. on 20 June, 1997

41. Mr. Gopalaratnam, learned senior counsel invited us to apply the above passage to the case presently under discussion. He next drew our attention to the new Act, Act 43 of 1958, having by Section 108(3), expressly recognising an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, in contrast to the terms of Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, which, was, that came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick Bros. Ltd. (1953) 2 M.L.J. 215 (S.C.) case referred to above.
Madras High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

H.P. Road Transport Corporation vs Pt. Jai Ram And Etc. Etc. on 18 June, 1979

With great respect, we are unable to comprehend why, if cross-objection lies at the same level of relief as the appeal in which it is filed, the same could not be allowed to be filed, when the appeal itself is allowed to be filed as a matter of procedure which is adopted by the Court concerned. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the decision given by the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. (supra) cannot be distinguished, and the view taken by the learned Chief Justice sitting as a single Judge is, with due respect, not the one which we could follow. We find that Himachal Bench of Delhi High Court has taken the view which we are taking, in connection with an appeal arising from Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. Section 104 of that Act provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Judge from an order of the Compensation Officer and a second appeal shall lie from the decision of the District Judge to Judicial Commissioner. No procedure has been prescribed by that Act in respect of the appeals filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. The question arose before the Court as to whether cross-objections were competent in the second appeal or not. The Court held that the provisions of C.P.C. should apply to such appeals and there-fore cross-objections were competent.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023

"12. What follows from the aforesaid discussion of the relevant provisions of law and the judicial pronouncements on the subject is that unless a statute itself bars a second appeal in the High Court or makes the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court final (as in case of Section 43, Delhi Rent Control Act), the Letters Patent appeal will lie from a judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court to the Division Bench of the Court. Section 54 of the Act does not contain any such bar and, therefore, an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be maintainable. Here we may notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros, reported in AIR 1953 SC 357. The Court was considering the question on the basis of Section 76 of Trade Marks Act. Under the said Section appeal lies to the High Court. The question was whether the decision of the High Court would be a judgment for purposes of considering its appealability under the Letters Patent. It was observed "ordinarily after an appeal reaches the High Court, it has to be determined according to the rules or practice and procedure of that Court and in accordance with the provisions of the Charter under which that Court is LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 110 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 constituted and which confers on it power in respect to the method and manner of exercising that jurisdiction. Thus, Section 76, Trade Marks Act, confers a right of appeal to the High Court and says nothing more about it. That being so, the High Court being seized as such of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 76. It has to exercise that jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises its other appellate jurisdiction and when such jurisdiction is exercised by a Single Judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, there being nothing to the contrary in the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Promoshirt Sm Sa vs Armassuisse And Another on 6 September, 2023

"12. What follows from the aforesaid discussion of the relevant provisions of law and the judicial pronouncements on the subject is that unless a statute itself bars a second appeal in the High Court or makes the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court final (as in case of Section 43, Delhi Rent Control Act), the Letters Patent appeal will lie from a judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court to the Division Bench of the Court. Section 54 of the Act does not contain any such bar and, therefore, an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent will be maintainable. Here we may notice a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros, reported in AIR 1953 SC 357. The Court was considering the question on the basis of Section 76 of Trade Marks Act. Under the said Section appeal lies to the High Court. The question was whether the decision of the High Court would be a judgment for purposes of considering its appealability under the Letters Patent. It was observed "ordinarily after an appeal reaches the High Court, it has to be determined according to the rules or practice and procedure of that Court and in accordance with the provisions of the Charter under which that Court is LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 110 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 constituted and which confers on it power in respect to the method and manner of exercising that jurisdiction. Thus, Section 76, Trade Marks Act, confers a right of appeal to the High Court and says nothing more about it. That being so, the High Court being seized as such of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by Section 76. It has to exercise that jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises its other appellate jurisdiction and when such jurisdiction is exercised by a Single Judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, there being nothing to the contrary in the Trade Marks Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next