Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 145 publication of official journal Court: mumbai Year: 1924

Dec 19 1924 (PC)

A.J. Von Wulfing Vs. D.H. Jivandas and Co.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-19-1924

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR243

Tarapoerwala, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs allege that for several years prior to 1914, they had manufactured and sold under the names of ' Sanatogen ' and ' Formamint ' certain chemical compounds for use in medicine and pharmacy, that within a short time the said compounds sold under the name of Sanatogen and Formamint acquired a very high reputation throughout India and the sales thereof were large and profitable and the names of Sanatogen and Formamint had come to mean chemical compounds of the plaintiffs' manufacture. They further allege that on the outbreak of the War the said compounds were imported into India by the plaintiffs' London firm until the property and assets of the plaintiffs' London firm were sold in June 1917 by the controller appointed under the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Act 1916 to Genatosan Limited, that from and after June 1917, the said Genatosan Limited imported the said compounds under the names of Sanatogen and Formamint, that on the termination...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 1924 (PC)

Nagindas Motilal Vs. Nilaji Moroba Naik

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-07-1924

Reported in : AIR1924Bom390; (1924)26BOMLR395

Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the decision of the Division Court on November 23, 1921, refusing to excuse the delay of the applicants in the presentation of their petition for a certificate of appeal to the Privy Council. The learned Judges who constituted the Court disagreed as to whether the delay should be excused. Accordingly under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed, which was to the effect that the delay should not be excused. Consequently it became unnecessary to decide whether the certificate should be granted. I should state that one consolidated rule had been granted both in the above application to excuse delay and in the above petition for a certificate. They were respectively Civil Applications No. 615 of 1921 and No. 681 of of 1921, and both of them were before the Division Court Similarly the present appeal before us is headed in both the above applications, although that does not appear fr...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //