Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT278; 2006(32)PTC91(Del)
..... (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed. (2)without prejudice to the provisions contained ..... of the act under the 1911 act and those proceedings be continued as if the 2000 act had not been passed. the corresponding provision to section 51a of 1911 act dealing with cancellation of registration is section 19 of 2000 act where the ambit and scope has been expanded and additional grounds have been added. 7. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a learned single judge of the bombay high court had the occasion to consider the effect of this repeal provision of 2000 act in faber castell aktiengesellschaft v. pikpen (p) ltd. 2003 (27) ptc 538. the relevant section 48 is as under :'48.repeal and savings.-(1)the design act, 1911 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)1CALLT290(HC),2006(3)CHN188,2006(33)PTC434(Cal)
..... the priority date of the application for registration; a design which is not significantly distinguishable from known designs; and a design which combination of known designs or comprises or contains scandalous or obscene matter. there was no provision in the designs act, 1911 corresponding to section 4 of the 2000 act which expressly prohibited the registration of any design. section 4 restricts publication whether in india or in any other country to publication in 'tangible form'.26. section 51a of the designs act, 1911 which more or less corresponds to section 19 of the 2000 act provided as follows:51a. cancellation of registration,-(1) any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design-(a) at any time after the registration of the design, to the high court on any ..... other country prior to the date of registration, or(c) that the design is not a new or original design, or(d) that the design is not registrable under this act, or(e) that it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of section 2.(2) an appeal shall lie from any order of the controller under this section to the high court, and the controller may at any time refer any such petition to the high court, and the high court shall decide any petition so referred.23. in enacting the designs act, 2000, hereinafter referred to as the 2000 act, which has repealed the designs act, 1911, earlier in force, parliament has .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN447,2005(30)PTC140(Cal)
..... has come into force. in order to answer this question, the court has to consider the new act as a whole as also the provisions of repeal under the new act.17. chapter xi of the new act deals with the provisions of repeal and saving under section 48. the said section is as under :'48. repeal and savings.--(l) the designs act, 1911 (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed.(2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in the general clauses act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice, decision, determination, direction, approval, authorisation, consent, application, request or thing ..... classification under the old act. the new act introduces additional grounds under section 19(1) for cancellation of registration as compared to the grounds in section 51a of the old act. one of the grounds of cancellation in the new act is that the design has been published in india or in any other country prior to the date of registration. but the ground for cancellation under the old act was the publication of the design only in india prior to the date of registration. apart from that there are two additional grounds of cancellation under the new act incorporated under clauses (d) and (e) of section 19(1) of the new act. section 4 of the new act provides for grounds for prohibition of registration of certain designs. section 4 of the new act is also a new provision .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)ALLMR139; 2003(6)BomCR65; 2003(4)MhLj264; 2003(27)PTC538(Bom); [2003]45SCL362(Bom)
..... ng the ground for cancellation provided only by the new act, i.e., designs act, 2000.the question is whether the cancellation of the design in question is governed by the designs act, 2000 or the designs act, 1911. the designs act, 2000 i.e. act no. 16 of 2000 was enacted on 25.5.2000 as 'an act to consolidate and amend the law relating to protection of designs'. this enactment repeals the earlier act i.e. the designs act, 1911. section 48 of the new act reads as follows:-'48. repeal and savings.--the designs act, 1911 (2 of 1911) is hereby repealed.(2) without prejudice to the provisions contained in the general clauses act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with respect to repeals, any notification, rule, order, requirement, registration, certificate, notice design, determination, direction ..... liable to be cancelled under section 19 of the designs act, 2000. such a ground for cancellation is available as a ground of defence by virtue of section 22(3) of the designs act, 2000 and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction based on such a design which has been published in a country outside india i.e. the u.s.a. as well as in india. now it must be noted that under the designs act, 1911, only a design not previously registered in india could be registered vide section 43. likewise, a petition for cancellation of the registration of the design could be presented on the ground that the design had been published in india prior to the date of registration vide section 51a. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE9H DAY OF DECEMBER201418TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1266 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 732/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-: ----------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MUHAMMED, FLAT NO.3A, HEAVEN, PUNDIT'S COLONY, KURANVANKONAM WARD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM KALANNOOR VEEDU, KALANNOORPURAM DESOM, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. (A1).2. JALEEL, S/O.MUHAMMED, H.NO.A72, SASTHAMANGALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE FROM B.C.HOUSE, KUKAR DESOM MAGALPAD, UPPALAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD (A2).3. RAJKUMAR SAHU, S/O.MUNNAN SAHU, SANTHOSHPUR DESOM, MIRGON VILLAGE VIDANAPPUR DISTRICT, BANGAL. (A3).4. JANTTU SAIT, S/O.PANCHANAN SAIT, RESIDENT OF MINTUGERU DESOM, WEST BENGAL (A4) 5. ABDULSALAM, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR KARUMAVARI MUSLIM JAMA ATH, UPANIYOOR DESOM, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A5). BY A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods - 58 U.S. 85 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods, 58 U.S. 17 How. 85 85 (1854) United States v. Sixty-Seven Packages of Dry Goods 58 U.S. (17 How.) 85 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus The 66th section of the Act of 1799, 1 Stat. 677, ch. 22, which declares that "If any goods, wares, or merchandise, of which entry shall have been made in the office of a collector, shall not be invoiced according to the actual cost thereof, at the place of exportation, with design to evade the duties thereupon or any part thereof, all such goods &c.;, or the value thereof, to be recovered of the person making Page 58 U. S. 86 the entry, shall be forfeited," has not been repealed by any provision in the act of 1842, or in any of the duty acts, but still exists in full force and effect. A libel of information was filed in the district court by the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... matter that the learned single judge then proceeded to decide the cancellation as empowered by the old act 1911 under section 51a wherein high court could entertain the cancellation proceedings. but after the amendment and enactment of 2000 act, as per the design act, 2000, the powers to hear cancellation vests before the controller general of designs and the high court powers are in a away divested to hear cancellation petition except to the extent of hearing the challenges to the validity as a defence to the infringement proceeds. the rest of the powers to entertain cancellation are taken away by the act of 2000. once, the said powers are divested from this court by way ..... act, 1970 repealed the provisions of the patents and designs act, 1911, so far as they related to patents. however, the provisions relating to designs were not repealed and continued to govern the designs law. india joined the wto as a member state in 1995. consequently, the patents & designs act, 1911 was repealed and the designs act, 2000 was enacted, to make the designs law in india trips compliant. the definition of design in the designs act, 2000 is more or less the same as that of the 1911 act. novelty under the 1911 act was determined with reference to india, whereas under the designs act, 2000 novelty is determined on a global basis.38. the legislative policy behind the patent and designs act being statutory in nature is that by applying for a patent and design to the patent office and designs .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
B.C. Basak, C.J. 1. These series of Miscellaneous Appeals involve a common question of law relating to the interpretation of some of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act'), the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1988 Act) and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1897 Act'). 2. The relevant provisions of the 1939 Act relating to appeals are as follows : Section 110D. 'Appeals -- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court. Provided that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the centripetal issue that has emerged for consideration is whether the Commissioner under the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 (for brevity, „the DVAT Act) can exercise suo motu power of revision under Section 74A of the DVAT Act in respect of assessments that have been completed under the Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 (for short, „the DST Act). Be it noted, when these petitions were listed before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the assessee - petitioner contended that in view of the decisions rendered in International Metro Civil Contractors v. Commissioner of Sales Tax/VAT & Another, [2008] 16 VST 329 (Delhi) and LG Electronics (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, New Delhi [2008] 16 VST 361 (Delhi) and also regard being had to the terms employed under Section 106 of the DVAT Act which deals with repeal and savings, a suo motu revisional power could not have been exercised. Combating the said submissions, it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1250; 2000(2)ALT19(SC); JT2000(2)SC453; (2000)IIMLJ112(SC); 2000(2)SCALE117; (2000)3SCC548; [2000]1SCR1031
ORDER1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 15-11-88 of the High Court of Madras in LPA No. 4/1983. The appellants in the LPA before the High Court were Sri. Y. R. Natarajan & Sri D. Srinivasan. The 1st respondent in the LPA was the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, the 2nd respondent, one E. Venkatasubbaiah and the 3rd respondent D. Adiseshayya. The 2nd and 3rd respondents were shown in the LPA as persons who died, and no legal representatives were brought on record. It also appears that the 2nd appellant D. Srinivasan was brought on record during the pendency of the first appeal before the learned Single Judge, In C.M.P. No. 4112/1978 on 20-7-1979. The first appeal A.S. No. 379/78 was filed by the Commissioner of Endowments, who was the defendant in the suit, against E. Venkatasubbaih and D. Adiseshayya and Y. R. Natarajan. Learned single Judge allowed the appeal of the Commissioner and the respondents in the 1st appeal filed the LPA as mentioned ab...
Tag this Judgment!