Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.05 seconds)Article 141 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 55 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. vs M/S. Bathla Cassettes India (P) Ltd. on 4 February, 1993
(j) To be noted, there is no dispute or disagreement before
me that Super Cassette case of Delhi High Court reported in AIR 1994 Del
237 or the aforesaid MAC Charles order of Supreme Court in SLP(C)
No.39994 of 2012 are not distinguishable on facts qua the case on hand.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
(n) Mr.Anirudh Krishnan, learned counsel, referred to three
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely, Municipal Corpn. of Delhi
Vs. Gurnam Kaur reported in AIR 1989 SC 38 : (1989) 1 SCC 101, State of
U.P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., reported in (1991) 4 SCC 139 and
Arnit Das (1) Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2000) 5 SCC 488 and
submitted that Professor P.J. Fitzgerald, Editor of the Salmond on
Jurisprudence, 12th Edn.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs M/S. Synthetics And Chemicals Ltd. And ... on 18 July, 1991
explained the concept of sub silentio and this
explanation of Professor P.J.Fitzgerald has been quoted in the aforesaid
Gurnam Kaur and Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. cases and the said
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. case has been referred to in Arnit Das
case. Relevant paragraph of what Prof.P.J.Fitzgerald said is as follows :
Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs Jagdeeshan on 15 January, 2002
This has been articulated in paragraph 9 of Suganthi
Suresh Kumar Vs. Jagdeeshan reported in (2002) 2 SCC 420. Paragraph 9
of the said judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.T.Thomas reads as
follows :
M/S.Purbanchal Cables & Conductors ... vs Assam State Electricity Board & Anr on 10 July, 2012
[(1991) 4 SCC 139] and Purbanchal Cables and
http://www.judis.nic.in
12
Conductors Private Limited Vs. Assam State
Electricity Board [AIR 2012 SC 3167]- all these
judgments are for the interpretation of sub silentio).
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Kunhayammed & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 19 July, 2000
In the light of the Kunhayammed
case principle, MAC Charles certainly operates as binding precedent is my
considerable view.