Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: patents amendment act 2002 section 41 · Page 1 of about 622 results (0.115 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Apr 01 2008

Span Diagnostic Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Design and anr ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-01-2008

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 83; Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 25, 25(1), 25(2), 25(3), 25(4), 27, 28, 29(2), 29(3), 37, 41, 42, 47, 51, 54, 57, 59 to 63, 66, 69(3), 74, 78, 84(1) to 84(5), 85, 86, 88, 88(3), 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 116, 116(1), 116(2), 117, 117A, 117A(2), 117G and 158; Patents Amendment Act, 2002 - Sections 1(2), 18 and 47; Patents Amendment Act, 2005 - Sections 1(1), 1(2), 23, 60 and 61; Patents Amendment Act, 1999

Reported in : LC2009(1)22; 2008(37)PTC56(Del)

question of law afore-noted has arisen due to the amendments incorporated in the Patents Act, 1970 by the Patents Amendment Act, 2002 notified on 25th June, 2002 but various provisions thereof brought into force firstly on 20.5.2003 and the remaining … into force. 10. Relevant for my decision would be to note that vide Section 18 of the Patent Amendment Act 2002, Section 25 of the Principal Act was amended by introducing clauses 'j' and 'k' after existing clause 'i' as … as under:Section 1(1)...(2) (ii) (a), and clause (b), of Section 37, Sections 41, 42, 47, 59 to 63 (both inclusive and Section 74 shall come

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

May 04 2012

M/S. Philips Electronics India Limited Vs. M/S. Asian Electronics Limi ...

Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB

Decided on : May-04-2012

Subject : Land Acquisition

Matched in: Judge The Honourable Smt. Justice Prabha Sridevan, Chairman &Amp; D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member (Patents)

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 16 2004

Shri Rahul Sharad Awasthi Vs. Shri Ratnakar Trimbak Pandit and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-16-2004

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 1(2), 3, 4, 4(1), 4(2), 5, 16, 16(2), 100A and 102; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) Amendment Act, 1978 - Sections 97; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1999 - Sections 7, 10, 13, 16 and 32; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 1976 - Sections 97; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rules 5, 15, 17 and 18 - Order 20, Rule 1; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6; Sphere of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 10F

Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR896; 2004(5)BomCR50; 2004(4)CTC241; 2004(3)MhLj706

the meanwhile the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted. Interalia by Section 4 of the Amendment Act, 2002, Section 100A of the Code (as substituted by Section 10 of the Amendment Act, 1999), was substituted thus:'100-A. No … presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated January 15, 2004 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal observed that the decision of the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) in Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Oct 14 2004

Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Amtek Geophysical Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Oct-14-2004

Subject : Arbitration

Acts : Arbitration Act, 1940 - Sections 19, 20, 37, 37(3), 37(4) and 41; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9, 11, 16, 21, 43 and 43(2); UNCITRAL Rules - Rule 6 and 6A - Schedule - Article 19; Railways Claims Tribunal Act - Sections 18; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 137; Limitation (Amendment) Act, 1963 - Sections 3, 3(2) and 5 - Schedule - Article 137; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Orders 32 and 33

Reported in : 115(2004)DLT624

[2003]3SCR1149 it has been opined thus:-26. A perusal of the above said provisions shows that it is the Amendment Act of 1976 which has conferred a statutory right on a defendant to file a counter-claim. The relevant words … and consequently Dr. Avtar Singh was appointed in his place in December, 2002. It has been stated in the Petition that between December, 2002 and … is whether the Counter Claim had become time barred so far as the pending arbitral proceedings are concerned. Section 41 of the 1940 Act makes it clear that, subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed … embroiled in esoteric legal arguments that we fail to perceive what is patently obvious. If A has a claim or grievance against B plain commonsense

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Apr 11 2018

Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. And Ors. Vs.monsanto Technology Llc and Ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-11-2018

Subject : Land Acquisition

Trade (GATT), including the Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, India, inter alia, introduced the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002, in June 25, 2002. This amendment altered the definition of “an invention” under Section 2(1)(j) to include the … (c) specific relief cannot be granted in respect of a contract which is in its nature determinable. Under Section 41 (e) injunctive remedy is not available “to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which would

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Mar 13 2015

Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Intex Technologies (India) ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-13-2015

Subject : Land Acquisition

SINGH, J.1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of rights in eight patents registered in India alongwith damages/rendition of accounts and delivery up etc.2. Alongwith the plaint the plaintiff has filed … claimed that the plaintiff is one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world. The Ericsson group is active in more than 180 countries having annual sales of USD35Billion (approximately) for the year 2013. The Ericsson’s main … being I.A. No.6735/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. By this order, I propose to decide the abovementioned application.3.

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 18 2002

Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devastan of Paroda by Its Special Attorne ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-18-2002

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (2003)105BOMLR915

100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which has been amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 will be prospective in operation or retrospective in operation. The aforesaid Amendment was brought into force on 1st … on 1st July, 2002.2. The only issue which has been argued is whether any of the pending Letters Patent Appeals which have already been admitted by this Court are also covered by the said Section 100A as … of the said Section 37 after hearing under Rule 11 of Order XLI; and every such admitted appeal shall be dealt with as if the

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 29 2003

Ganesh Singh and anr. Vs. Bishram Singh and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Decided on : Jul-29-2003

Subject : Civil

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100A; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) (Amendment) Act, 2002

Reported in : [2003(3)JCR527(Jhr)]

learned Single Judge of this Court on 21.1.2002. This appeal was filed invoking Clause 10 of the Letter Patent. The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act 22 of 2002 and Act 46 of 1999 was … 100A was inserted in the Code of Civil Procedure by Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, Act 104 of 1976. The said section as inserted then read as follows : 'No further appeal in … they only saved those appeals which had already been admitted under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, by

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Aug 28 2009

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

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-28-2009

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)

Matched in: Citation 2009(41)PTC260(Del)

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 24 2008

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

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Sep-24-2008

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,

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial