Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 480 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 29 September, 2000

Major General A.K. Kapur, Vsm vs Union Of India & Ors. on 7 October, 2009

33. If the petitioner had been promoted, nothing precluded the respondents at the appropriate stage to take action against him. The Army authorities have deemed fit that during all this period of time when the petitioner had not been promoted, he continues to occupy the most important post i.e. Major General Army Ordnance Corps (MGAOC), HQ, South Western Command, Jaipur and the petitioner is dealing with purchases. Thus, the petitioner had been found fit to perform important duties dealing with financial ramifications and yet promotion has been denied to him. The origin of all this is what is stated to be sourced information received just prior to the petitioner being considered for promotion by the SSB. We do feel that this is one of the exceptional cases which fall within the category of cases as mentioned in Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors‟s case (supra) where there is a clear case of legal bias against the petitioner, who is sought to be denied promotion on one count or the other though none of the counts can come in the way of his promotion.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 29 March, 2007

91. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. where explaining the language of the Constitution of India said 'the jurisdiction is to enable the courts to reach justice wherever found necessary and to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of the country.' Moulding and grant of relief is a concept relatable to the principle of necessity founded on the facts and circumstances of a given case. To prescribe a strait-jacket formula applicably universally, is neither possible nor permissible. Thus, in light of these principles we have to look into the peculiar facts and Page 1155 circumstances of the present case and the relief which could be granted to either party in light of the enunciated principles of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 5 - S Kumar - Full Document

Bharat Bhogilal Patel vs Creative Surgicals Mfg Co on 7 May, 2026

Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:29:12 ::: 6-NMCD-1604-2019 B.​ While it is undoubtedly correct that the second order records "the invention was known, that there is neither any novelty nor any inventive step", the second order is entirely bereft of any independent reasoning to support such finding. Also, and crucially, the IPAB has, in both the subsequent orders of revocation specifically granted the Plaintiff, the liberty to challenge the said orders, depending upon the outcome of the Writ Petitions by which the Plaintiff had impugned the First Order. Therefore, in my view, for the reasons set out in paragraph (A), it is clear that the second and third orders were premised entirely upon the First Order. Hence, I find that the Plaintiff's reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu to be entirely apposite, and the said discussion would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. C.​ I also find much merit in the Plaintiff's contention that the subsequent orders of revocation were never given effect to. This is apparent from the fact that the said Patents have been renewed and shown as being 'in force' in the e-Register since the year 2013. Furthermore, if the 27 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:29:12 ::: 6-NMCD-1604-2019 subsequent orders, or either of them, had been enforced, the IPAB would have, as per the provisions of Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, communicated the subsequent orders of revocation to the Controller of the Patents. Clearly this has not been done since, as already noted above, the renewal fees have been accepted, and the said Patents show as being in force. The record also bears out that the validity of the said patents has been extended without any qualification as under the provisions of Section 67(1)(c) of the Patents Act. This would not have been so had the subsequent orders been given effect to.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next