Advanced Search Results

Sumitomo Corporation Vs. Cdc Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd. and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 2(11), 10(1), 10F, 397, 398, 399 and 402; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2, 8, 37, 44, 45, 47, 47(2), 48 and 50; Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 16 to 20

Reported in : AIR2008SC1594; 2008(1)ARBLR452(SC); (2008)1CompLJ393(SC); JT2008(3)SC32; 2008(4)MhLj31; 2008(3)SCALE92; (2008)4SCC91; [2008]82SCL495(SC); 2008AIRSCW1766; MANU/SC/1101/2008

person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … order refusing to- (a) refer the parties to arbitration under Section 45; (b) enforce a foreign award under Section 48, to the court authorized by law to hear appeals from such order.(2) xxxxxxxxx10. Jurisdiction of Courts.- (1) The

Vijay Sekhri and Another Vs M/S. Tinna Oils and Chemicals and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : Companies Act

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10F , 50 ; Arbitration Act - 8 ; 45

person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board 2[made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002] may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … from the order refusing to(a) refer the parties to arbitration under Section 45;(b) enforce a foreign award under Section 48; to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from such order.(2) No second appeal shall lie from

Chemtura Corporation Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 3, 8, 8(1), 8(2), 11A(7), 12, 13(4), 25, 47 and 48, 48(1), 48(2), 53, 64, 64(1), 68, 69, 107 and 156; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 80 - Order 39, Rules 1, 2 and 4; Patents Rules, 2003 - Rules 12(1), 12(3), 15 and 25

Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)

similar facts. 47. It was urged on the strength of the above decisions that after its amendment in 2002, Section 48 has strengthened the right of a patent holder to prevent third parties from infringing his rights and that … quoted application has been examined under Section 12 of the Patents Act, 1970, as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 and the first statement of objection of forwarded herewith the compliance. The documents noted in the margin are … The Plaintiff states that it has licensed the said device to three companies in Lucknow. These companies are Avadh Rubber Ltd., Aryan Exporters Pvt. Ltd., … a carriage. A two stage suspension system comprising a primary and a secondary stage is generally employed on the wheel trucks. Although in India we

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11B(1), 11B(3), 12, 12(1), 13, 13(1), 13(4), 25, 26(1), 43, 47, 48, 53(1), 64, 104A, 105, 106 and 108; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 48; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles Act; Patents Act, 1949; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(8), 26(1), 51 and 53

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

this stage of interim application, while considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 of 2002), which has come into effect from 20.05.2003 and Amendment Act 2005, which came into … the patentee was having, an exclusive right to use the patented product, whereas, after the amendment, as per Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, it gives an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent the third parties … where more than one spark plug is employed, the addition of a second spark plug ensures acceptable probability of combustion initiation of at least one

Salem Textiles Limited Vs. Authorized Officer of Phoenix Arc Private L ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Land Acquisition

take note of 3 developments that have taken place, one in the year 2002 in the form of Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, the second in the same year 2002 in the form of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Repeal Act, … High Court went to the extent of holding that in the light of Section 35 of the Securitisation Act, 2002, Section 22 of SICA does not survive anymore. (vi) In Nabha Industries Ltd vs. Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited Vs. Amit Gupta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Courts.4. It is stated that the recommendations of the Eradi Committee were accepted by the Government and Company (Second Amendment) Act, 2002 was passed providing for establishment of NCLT and NCLAT to take-over the functions which are being performed by … provides that the State Commission shall discharge the function of adjudicating ―the disputes between the licensees, and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration‖. Therefore, any issue in relation to the PPA must be raised … or fact ―arising out of‖ or ―in relation to‖ insolvency resolution proceedings. 48 In varying contexts, this Court has expansively construed the expressions ―relating to‖ … JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A The appeal B The genesis of

Masusmi Sa Investment Llc Vs. Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Arbitration

person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Company Law Board [made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002] may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … order refusing to - (a) refer the parties to arbitration under section 45; (b) enforcea foreign award under section 48, to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from such order. (2) No second appeal shall lie

M/S United Breweries (Holdings) Limited vs Offilical Liquidator

Court : Karnataka

filed, the provision relevant for that purpose was Section 391(7) of the Act. Although in terms of the Companies (Second Amendment Act) 2002 (‘2002 Amendment’), Section 391(7) stood omitted, the said amendment was to take effect only from date notified by … the side of the appellant i.e., AIR 1998 SC 3153, AIR 1999 Bom 240 and AIR 1996 SC 489 (cited supra), they all deal with the scope and power of the court under Section 155 and not

C.Mangala Vijayalakshmi vs K.S.Kasimaris

Court : Chennai

‘Any person aggrieved by any decisionor order of the Company Law Board made before the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the … CKJ) Prayer in O.S.A.No.430 & 431 of 2001: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Section 483 of Companies Act 1/1956 to set aside the order passed in C.P.Nos.274, 199 of 1998 dated 19.10.2001 … 40.Mr.Surya Pratap Reddy 41.Ms.Manoja Lakshmi 42.Mr.N.Jayachandran 43.Ms.E.Latha 44.Mr.J.Elumalai 45.Mr.S.Ramakrishnan 46.Ms.Vijaya Sudha 47.Mr.G.Satyanarayana 48.Mrs.R.Sharada 49.Mr.P.Rajendra Prasad Babu 50.Ms.Malleswari Nayagam 51.Mr.P.Raju 52.Mr.R.S.Soundar Rajan 53.Ms.S.Annalakshmi Jansi 54.Mr.R.Munusamy 55.Ms.P.Valliammal

Subhash JaIn Vs. Pioneer Shopping Complex (P.) Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10F, 397, 398, 402 and 634A; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Companies (Amendment) Act, 2002; Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 9; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Reported in : [2008]142CompCas533(Ker); [2007]79SCL289(Ker)

for gain:Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply on and after the commencement of the Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002.Section 634A has conferred power on the Company Law Board to enforce its orders. Section 634A says that … with such provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court in Consmosteels (P.) Ltd. v. Jairam Das Gupta [1978] 48 Comp. Cas. 312 has examined the scope of Sections 397 and 398 and stated that the scheme of