Indicated - Judgment Search Results
M/s. Indication Instruments Limited Vs. Anita Kumari and Another
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Oct-05-2015
1. Dispute as to termination arose on January 06, 2011 when the services of respondent-Anita Kumari were illegally terminated by the management. She had been appointed as a Helper on March 02, 2009. Anita Kumari approached...
National Cash Register Co. Vs. Boston Indicator Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Mar-04-1895
as follows: "We provide any suitable box or case, A, ornamented as desired, and of the general shape indicated, though its shape and ornamentation may be varied infinitely. In this outer case is fitted a metal framework
“learned Counsel Inter-alia Contended That Although No Indicated Off ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Mar-02-2013
hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on 18.2.2013:- “Learned counsel, inter-alia, contended that although no indicated offences CRM not M-5460 of 2013 (O&M) 2 are made out against the petitioners but still the parties
18-section briefs on any result in this list
“10. What Cannot Possibly Be Disputed Here Is That the Indicated Nar ...
Court: Punjab and Haryana
Decided on: Jul-18-2014
order dated 8.5.2013, which, in substance, is as under:-“10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the indicated Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and controlled salt, recovered from the possession of the petitioner, are duly described and
Boehringer Ingelheim International Gmbh Vs. the Controller of Patents ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on: Jun-19-2013
(Circuit Bench At Delhi) Order (No. 130 of 2013) D.P.S. Parmar Technical Member (Patents) The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the respondent No.1 dated 12.01.2011 wherein he refused patent application No.924/DEL/NP/2006 relating to “3-[(2-(4-(Hexyloxycarbonylamino-lmino-Methyl)-Phenylamino-Methyl)-1-Methyl-1h-Benzimidazol-5-Carbonyl)-Pyridine-2-Yl-Amino]-Propionic...
Sugen Inc.and Another Vs. Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade ...
Court: Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on: Apr-05-2013
and now, the appellant presses for stay. 3. Before we heard the counsel for both the parties, we indicated to the counsel that it was in the interest of all parties that the main matter is heard
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free