Advanced Search Results

Mahammed Saud and ors. Vs. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz and anr.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Civil

Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46

Order, 1948, this Letters Patent Appeal can be entertained in view of amendment of the CPC by the Amendment Act 22 of 2002 after 1st July, 2002.13. Before proceeding further, it would be prudent to quote the relevant … the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge. Similar view … a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, … from no other orders:(Clause (a) to (f) omitted)(ff) an order under Section 35-A;(ff-a) an order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute

Carlos Alberto Perez Lafuente vs.uoi & Ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Intellectual Property

hand, and have considered the respective submissions.15. The deferred examination system was introduced in the Act by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002. Prior to that, all patent applications were required to be examined by the Controller of Patents under Section … a request in the prescribed manner; and (ii) in a case where secrecy direction has been issued under section 35, the request for examination may be made within the prescribed period from the date of revocation of the

Kamal Kumar Dutta and anr. Vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10E, 10F, 53, 81(1A) 189, 193, 283(1), 397, 397(1), 398, 398(1), 399, 402 and 483; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1988; Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Sections 19(1); Companies (Second Amendment) Act, 2002; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 4, 4(1), 100A, 104(1) and 104(2); ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 100A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 100A; Companies (Amendment) Act, 1991

Reported in : [2006]134CompCas678(SC); (2006)5CompLJ511(SC); JT2006(7)SC333; 2006(7)SCALE668; [2006]70SCL222(SC)

:483. Appeals from orders.- Appeals from any order made or decision given before the commencement of the Companies(Second Amendment) Act, 2002, in the matter of the winding up of a company by the Court shall lie to the same … and 398 of Companies Act, 1956, Section 100A of Code of Civil Procedure and Clause 15 of Letters Patents - whether appeal against Order of Single Judge to Division Bench under Letters Patent is maintainable or not … no appeal can lie to Division Bench under Letters Patent. - Sections 35-C & 129(B): [S.B.Sinha & Cyriac Joseph,JJ] Power of Tribunal to recall order

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

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 … or the amount of expenditure of a capital nature referred to in Clause (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Section 35 or in Section 35A or in Clause (ix) of Sub-section (1) of Section 36, or, in the case … 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)

Bayer Corporation Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

patent rights.” 20. Significantly the text of section107A of the Act, as introduced by section 44 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, was materially different from the one proposed under the 1999 Bill. The said section as brought in force … this exception has been generally referred to as the Bolar Exception.17. The statutory text of the Bolar Exemption; 35 US Code 271(e)(1), reads as under:“It shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income-tax Act, 1961 - Sections 18A(2), 18A(5), 18A(6), 28, 33A, 44AB, 142(2), 143(1), 143(1A), 143(2), 143(3), 154, 154(1) and 256(1); Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Rule 6D; Finance Act, 1993; Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1987; Finance Act, 1990; Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953; Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Sections 35; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : (2001)170CTR(Ker)298; [2001]252ITR503(Ker)

(a) can be invoked. - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]: [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals … originally on account of interest. After the amendment Act was passed, the Income-tax Officer exercised his power under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and rectified the mistake in the order of assessment and demanded repayment … was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the Amendment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Electropack [Alongwith Misc.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Ahd.)973

1995, the proceedings initiated are not proper and just. 3. As per the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2002, to Section 158B, the definition of "undisclosed income" is reproduced as under: 158B(b) : 'undisclosed income' includes any … was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment … was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment Act. But, such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the amendment … 150) : "It is in the light of this position that the extent of the ITO's power Under Section 35 to rectify mistakes apparent from the record must be determined and in doing so, the scope and effect

Macquarie Bank Limited Vs. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

Act, 1993 and Section 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were held not to override specific provisions contained in the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 and the Kerala … counsel in the common law system, and the evil sought to be remedied by Parliament by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, namely, attainment of certainty and expeditious disposal of cases by reducing the terms of compromise to writing … scope of which is very clear and which co-exists particularly when no patent conflict or inconsistency can be spelt out. As already noted Rules 1(3)(a),

Sharma Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Vinod Muktinath Sharma

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

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 … the relevant material. 43. Adverting to the right of appeal, as a creature of statute, as provided by Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, this Court in Raj Kumar Shivhare (supra) held that the expression … a decision which is the foundation thereof, suffers from perversity, following a patent error on a fundamental principle of law or disregard to relevant materials