Dr. Anoop Varghese Vs. the Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Ipr Building and Another

Dr. Anoop Varghese vs The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Ipr Building and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB Decided Jul 14, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1117866

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1117866
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Judge: Hon'Ble Ms. S. Usha, Vice- Chairman &Amp; HonBle Shri S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member
Decided On: Jul 14, 2009
Case Number: M.P.No.2/2009 in TRA/10/08/PT/CH & TRA/10/08/PT/CH & M.P.No.1/2009 in TRA/9/08/PT/CH & TRA/9/08/PT/CH
Subject: Sales Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Sales Tax

Key legal issue: Sales Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. Anoop Varghese

Respondent

The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Ipr Building and Another

Excerpt

hon'ble ms. s. usha, vice-chairman: both the counsel present. counsel for applicant represents that he has no instructions from the applicant. as per directions of this board, registry had issued notice to the applicant and the same has been served on him. in spite of service, applicant has not appeared before this board. hence the rectification application is treated as abandoned as per rule 17(2) of the intellectual property appellate board (procedure) rules, 2003. . as the main rectification application has been dismissed, mp no.2/2009 does not survive.

Full Judgment

HON'BLE MS. S. USHA, VICE-CHAIRMAN:

Both the counsel present. Counsel for applicant represents that he has no instructions from the applicant. As per directions of this Board, Registry had issued notice to the applicant and the same has been served on him. In spite of service, applicant has not appeared before this Board. Hence the rectification application is treated as abandoned as per rule 17(2) of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003. . As the main rectification application has been dismissed, MP No.2/2009 does not survive.

Same Court & Year Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB · 2009 Same Parties Dr. Anoop Varghese vs The Controller of Patents, Patent Offic... Same Subject Sales Tax Same Judge Hon'Ble Ms. S. Usha, Vice- Chairman &Amp; HonBle Shri S. ...