Skip to content
How to use Narrow results with filters
  1. Run a keyword search first to load the results page.
  2. Select Supreme Court, a High Court, or tribunal on the left.
  3. Optionally filter by decision year to focus on recent or historical cases.

Indication - Judgment Search Results

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.

Oct 05 2015

M/s. Indication Instruments Limited Vs. Anita Kumari and Another

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Decided on: Oct-05-2015

Matched in: Parties M/s. Indication Instruments Limited Vs. Anita Kumari and Another


Mar 04 1895

National Cash Register Co. Vs. Boston Indicator Co.

Court: US Supreme Court

Decided on: Mar-04-1895

National Cash Register Co. v. Boston Indicator Co. - 156 U.S. 502 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court National Cash Register Co. v. Boston Indicator Co., 156


Mar 02 2013

“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

Jul 18 2014

“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


Jun 19 2013

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...


Apr 05 2013

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


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial