Court : Trademark
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, New Delhi on behalf of M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Mainley of Switzerland on July 27, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These two appeals filed by the assessee as well by the revenue are consolidated and disposed of by a single order as common issue is involved in both the appeals.2. Taking up the assessee's appeal filed in ITA No. 2524/Delhi/96 first, Shri Ajay Vohra, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a Charitable Trust. The aforesaid Trust was started in 1961 by Late Sir Sobha Singh. It has been accepted as a Charitable Trust right till assessment year 1991-1992. The objects of the Trust have been listed in clause 30 of the Trust Deed (page 60 of the paper book). There are as many as 19 objects listed on pages 6 and 7 of the aforesaid Trust Deed.As per the provisions of section 11(2) of the Act, the assessee is allowed to accumulate 75% of the income, subject to certain conditions.It has to give a notice in writing to the officer in the prescribed manner specifying the purpose for which the income is being accumulated or set apart and the period for which the income is to be accumulated or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal261,1963CriLJ579,67CWN297
P.B. Mukharji, J.1.This is a petition by Ranjit Kumar Ghosh under Article 227 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is directed for the release of a person called Sanat Chandra Bose, son of a well-known Solicitor of the City, Akshoy Chandra Bose, deceased. The main ground of the petition is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose was being unlawfully and illegally detained at a place called Lumbini Park said to be a Mental Hospital and Clinic run by the Indian Psycho-analytical Society, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said Sanat Chandra Bose is not a lunatic at all.2. There are four respondents to this petition. The first two are respectively the Secretary of the Indian Psycho-analytical Society and the Superintendent of the Lumbini Park (respondents NOS. 1 and 2): the third respondent is Rabindra Nath Mitra alleged to be the guardian of the person of said Sanant Chandra ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith - 165 U.S. 28 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Warner Valley Stock Co. v. Smith, 165 U.S. 28 (1897) Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith No. 550 Argued December 17-18, 1896 Decided January 11, 1897 165 U.S. 28 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus A bill in equity against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office to restrain them from exercising further jurisdiction with respect to the disposition of certain public lands, and from further trespassing upon the plaintiff's right of quiet possession thereof, and to compel the Secretary to prepare patents therefor to be issued to the plaintiff in accordance with law, and to the end that the plaintiff's title may be quieted and freed from cloud, and for further relief, abates, as to the Secretary, upon his resignation of his office, and cannot afterwards be maintained against the Commissioner alone. The case is stated in the opinion. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj63; 2003(2)WLN28
B. Prasad, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus:--'This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Hon'ble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, dated 29-8-2001....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
(Circuit Bench At Delhi) Order (No. 123 of 2013) Prabha Sridevan, Chairman The applicant seeks revocation of the Patent No: 203552 for an Invention titled Method for monitoring a Sensor. The Priority date is 27-11-2001. 2. The applicant sought revocation of the patent on several grounds. Pending the ORA, Miscellaneous Petition No.86 of 2012 was filed for submitting a copy of the decision of the Opposition Board dated 24th February, 2010 in respect of corresponding EP Patent No. EP1454058. In these proceedings the Respondent had amended the claims since the Opposition Board had found the original claims were not novel in view of a prior art which is The Wind Turbine Components and Operation Bonus Info Newsletter. This prior art is cited before us too. Miscellaneous Petition No. 142/2012 has been filed for amendment of the claims. 3. This matter was heard earlier by another Bench and orders were reserved. But orders were not pronounced because the then Technical Member retired. So we hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Root v. Railway Company - 105 U.S. 189 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Root v. Railway Company, 105 U.S. 189 (1881) Root v. Railway Company 105 U.S. 189 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus A. to whom had been assigned letters patent, filed, after the expiration of them, which took place July 6, 1873, his bill against B., charging that the latter had during their term infringed them by using the patented invention, whereby he realized gains, profits, and savings which he should be compelled to account for and pay to the complainant. The bill was, on demurrer, dismissed. Held that the decree below is proper, the bill being merely for an account of profits and damages against an infringes, and it not appearing from the case thereby made that any ground of equitable jurisdiction exists, or that A. has not a complete remedy at law whereby damages for the wrongs complained of can be recovered. The facts are stated in the opi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1909)ILR36Cal141
R.F. Rampini, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376, has held that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the Article applicable is not Article 36, but some other Article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer (1898) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I consider that the Article of the Schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.788
Robert Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises cut of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376; (Sub-nomine Hari Charan Fadikar v. Hari Kar) 32 C. 459, has held that the article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the article applicable is not Article 36, but some ether article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer 25 C. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) This Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 4 October 2012 by which a motion seeking a direction under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 striking off the defence of the Appellant to a Petition for enforcing a foreign award was allowed. The learned Single Judge has directed that the defence filed by the Appellant to the Petition instituted by the Respondent under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be struck off. 2. The facts before the Court lie in a narrow compass. On 25 October 2007 a contract of affreightment was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent for shipment of a certain consignment of Bauxite from the west coast of India to China. One of the ports of dispatch was Okha which, the Court is informed, falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court of Jamkhambhalia in the District of Jamnagar. The Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!