Advanced Search Results

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 28, 29, 30 to 43D, 48, 50, 56, 143, 143(1), 143(2), 144, 145, 145(1), 145(2) and 145(3); Finance Act, 2002; Companies Act - Sections 209; Finance Act, 1967

Reported in : (2009)223CTR(SC)1; [2009]312ITR254(SC); JT2009(5)SC378; 2009(5)SCALE198; (2009)13SCC1; [2009]179TAXMAN326(SC); 2009(3)LC1519(SC); [2009] 5 SCR 738

next contended that on a proper and true interpretation of the amendment to Section 43A, introduced by Finance Act, 2002, Section 43A is clarificatory. According to the learned Counsel, the occasion for the clarificatory amendment arose in view of … [Sections 32 and 43(1)], and also as regards capital assets for scientific research [Section 35(1)(iv)] and also regarding patent rights or copyrights [Section 35A].31. As held in Arvind Mills case (supra) increase or decrease in liability in … been upheld by the Delhi High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2007, hence, this Civil Appeal is filed by the Department.6. Shri Parag Tripathi,

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)

above 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 … and JPO etc., along with appropriate translation where applicable. This had to be furnished within a period of 30 days. 19. In response thereto, the Plaintiff by its letter dated 14th October 2005 did not specifically reply

Maharao Brijraj Singh Vs. Smt. Sarawati Devi Sharma @ Poddarni and ors ...

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Civil

Reported in : RLW2007(4)Raj3526

appeal is from the said order.3. Section 100A substituted by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 effective from July 1, 2002 reads thus:No further appeal in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent … 2002 effective from July 1, 2002 reads thus:No further appeal in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any law … Bench of the Bombay High Court in paragraphs 27, 28, 29 and 30 considered the matter thus:27. The expression 'notwithstanding', 'is heard and decided' and,

Shri Sanjay Z. Rane, Vs. Smt. Saibai S. Dubaxi (Since Deceased Through ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 4 and 100A; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9(2), 18, 25 and 53; Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Goa, Daman and Diu (Administration) Act, 1962 - Sections 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8; Goa, Daman and Diu Judicial Commissioner's Court (Declaration as High Court) Act 1964 - Sections 3, 8 and 11; Maharashtra High Court (Hearing of Writ Petitions, by Division Bench and Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1986; Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganisation Act, 1987 - Sections 20, 20(1), 20(3), 20(4), 22, 25 and 30; Small Causes Act; Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman and Diu) Act, 1981 - Sections 3, 4, 7(2), 7(3), 9 and 13; States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Sections 52, 54, 57 and 69; Goa Land Revenue Code

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR2668

It appears that on 18.9.2002, this Court took a view that Section 4 of Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, especially in relation to Section 100A thereof was applicable retrospectively and, therefore, letters patent appeals already filed were … that respect in existing High Court with necessary modifications shall apply in relation to the common High Court. Section 30 which contains saving provision states that nothing in Part IV shall affect the application to the common High … B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 18.9.2002 by this Court and said Judgment

Asha D/O Bhalchandra Joshi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Motor Vehicles

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(14), 4, 16, 17, 20, 96, 100, 100A, 110 and 115; Workmen's Compensation Act - Sections 23 and 30; Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 110, 140, 163A, 166, 169(2), 173 and 176; Land Acquisition Act - Sections 54; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 4 and 4(1); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10F, 12F, 397, 398 and 483; Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 - Sections 18; Motor Vehicles Rules - Rules 275 and 276; Bombay Public Trusts Act - Sections 72; Letters Patent Act - 30, 70, 72, 72(1) and 108

Reported in : 2009ACJ223; 2008(1)ALLMR745; 2008(2)BomCR76; 2008(1)MhLj724

Section 100-A in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 substituted by Section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 takes away the right of Letters Patent Appeal on and from 1st July, 2002 in respect of the … of the Letters Patent. As such, the resultant judgment delivered by a Single Judge in an appeal under Section 30 of the Act would not be in pursuant to Section 108 of the Act of 1915 as envisaged … the tenability of this intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, we would examine whether such an appeal is tenable, in order to

Nasik Hing Supplying Company Vs. Annapurna Gruh Udyog Bhandar

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Intellectual Property RightsCivil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 4, 4(1), 96, 100, 100A, 104, 104(1), 104(2) and 105 - Order 43, Rule 1; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 97, 109(5) and 109(8); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 and 2002

Reported in : AIR2003Guj275; (2003)2GLR926; (2003)2PLR926; [2003]46SCL118(Guj)

Judge of the High Court in writ proceedings has been done away with, consequently now with the C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002, abolition of Letters Patent Appeals is confined to appeals against the judgment of a single Judge exercising his … except with the consent of the other parties and with the leave of the labour Court or Tribunal. Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides that every Advocate shall be entitled as of right to practise in … Section 100A of the C.P.C. and of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and made the following observations :-'It would thus appear that neither under

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary and Others

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Subject : Intellectual Property

providing Exclusive Marketing Rights (EMR). The Indian Parliament made further amendments in the Patents Act, 1970 through the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 of 2002) which came into force from 20.05.2003 along with the Patents Rules, 2003 with a … 3, R 4, R 5, R 6 and R 7, respectively) filed representations by way of oppositions under section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as … 20.0o (65), 20.6o (76), 21.1o (100), 22.1o(89),22.7o (38),23.8o (44), 29.8o (23) and 30.8o (20) essentially as in Fig. 2/3. 8. The β-crystal form of the

Monsanto Technology Llc and Ors. Vs.nuziveedu Seeds Limited & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

in CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 74 of 96 Section 5, prior to its amendment in 2002, by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, read as under :-"claiming substances intended for the use, or capable"5. Inventions where only methods or processes of … said law by virtue of Section 92, overriding the Patents Act, 1970, it affording a right , under Section 30, to the use of any variety (of plant grouping) by any person as an initial source for the

Ramesh Chandra Das Vs. Kishore Chandra Das and ors.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR2007Ori146

and decree of such single Judge.Section 100A was first introduced by amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 97 of that Amending Act contained the provisions for Repeal and Savings. Section 97(2)(n) of the … to the conclusion, the learned Judges merely referred to paragraphs 22, 29, 30, 31, 32 of the judgment in Sathappan and came to the finding … the Code, as amended in 2002.100A. No further appeal in certain cases --Notwithstanding anything contained in 'any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other

P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 2(9), 3, 4, 4(1), 35A, 96 to 103, 104, 104(1), 104(2), 105, 105(2), 115, 117, 135, 217(1), 218D, 278 and 282 - Order 7, Rules 10 and 11 - Order 10, Rule 3 - Order 16, Rule 2 - Order 18, Rules 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 - Order 20, Rules 1 and 8 - Order 21, Rules 72, 90 and 92 - Order 33, Rule 7 - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 - Order 41, Rule 35 - Order 43, Rule 1 - Order 49, Rules 1, 2 and 3; Constitution of India - Articles 133, 136, 225, 329 and 372; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002; ;Indian High Courts Act, 1861; Legislative Act; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 223; India (Adaptation of Existing Laws) Order, 1949; Independence Act, 1947 - Section

Reported in : AIR2004SC5152; 2004(5)CTC209; JT2004(8)SC464; (2005)1MLJ105(SC); RLW2005(1)SC19; 2004(8)SCALE601; (2004)11SCC672

in the Code by reason of Code of Civil Procedure amendment Act, 1976 or Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002. In any event the provision of Section 100A of the Code being not retrospective in operation, the right … all such laws. In Clause 35 of the Letters Patent, there was a clear provision that the Letters Patents are subject to the legislative powers of the Governor-General in Council. It was accordingly thought that the Code … Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W. 2d 289, 302'[See Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed and Ors. - : (2004)4SCC460 ].42.