Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-26-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Cal14
R.N. Pyne, J.1. The respondents Messrs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and K. P. Ramaswami Nadar, as plaintiffs in the Court of the first instance, filed Suit No. 456 of 1965 against Union of India, the defendant in the suit and the appellant before us, for a decree for Rs. 10,017/- in favour of either or alternatively, an enquiry into demages and a decree for such sum as might be found due, interests, costs and other reliefs.2-3. The respondents case as stated in the plaint was as follows:--The respondent No. 1, Ganpatrai Sagarmull acted as a commission agent of the respondent No. 2, K. P. Ramaswami, that in any event if the respondent No. 1 was not competent to maintain the suit, the respondent No. 2 was entitled to the said sum by way of damages for non-delivery. After service of the due notices under Section 77 of the Railways Act, 1890 and Section 80 of C. P. C. the respondents on or about 16th March, 1965 filed the said suit against the appellant in the ordinary original civil jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-1982
Reported in : AIR1983Bom144; ILR1983Bom805
ORDER1. The opponents have preferred this appeal against the order and decision dated 5th July, 1980 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dismissing the opposition to the grant of patent and directing the Complete Specification to be amended as indicated in the said order.2. On 28-3-1971 one Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawalla made an application numbered 130620 for registration of a Patent for an invention relating to 'Improvement in or relating to Mufflers or Exhaust Silencers for Internal Combustion Engines' along with provisional specifications. On 14-6-71 the applicant filed complete specifications. The application was accepted by the Controller of Patents and the acceptance was notified in the Gazette of India dated 19-8-1972. The petitioners filed notice of opposition under S. 25 of the Patents Act, 1970. On 10-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply to the Notice of Opposition and on 26-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply -- Statement. On or about 21st June 1973 the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Feb-19-1982
Reported in : AIR1982Guj250; (1982)2GLR14
Surti, J. 1. A short and a neat point adversely affecting a citizen's legal right for being heard only in opposition proceedings under the Patents Act, 1970 arises in these two matters for our consideration,2. Both the aforesaid matters are disposed of by this common judgment as desired by the learned advocates of the parties.3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner - Anup Engineering Ltd. - before us, a few relevant facts may be stated.4. The petitioner-Company in manufacturing machines of several types, and is having its registered office at Anil Starch's Premises, Anil Road, Post Box No. 1164, Ahmedabad. It may be also stated at this stage that respondent No. 3 - 'Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.' - is having its office at 18.20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi.5. The case which was put up before us discloses that respondent No. 3 made an application to the Controller of Patents having its office at Municipal Market Building, III Floor, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, on Oct. 3,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-01-1982
Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories - 456 U.S. 844 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories, 456 U.S. 844 (1982) Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. No. 80-2182 Argued February 22, 1982 Decided June 1, 1982 * 456 U.S. 844 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Respondent manufactured and marketed the patented prescription drug cyclandelate to wholesalers, retail pharmacists, and hospitals in colored capsules under the registered trademark CYCLOSPASMOL. After respondent's patent expired, several generic drug manufacturers, including petitioner manufacturers, began marketing the drug, intentionally copying the appearance of the CYCLOSPASMOL capsules. Respondent then brought an action against petitioner manufacturers and wholesalers in Federal District Court under, inter alia, 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946, alleging that some pharmacists had dispensed generic drugs mislabeled as CYC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-25-1982
Reported in : 1983CriLJ495; 22(1982)DLT33; 1982RLR553
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J.(1) The Facts : The plaintiff, Dr. Bimal Chandra Sen, owns property No. 4405 in Darya Ganj, Delhi. He says that he gave a portion of his property on lease and license to one Mrs. Kamla Mathur wife of Shri Rama Shankar Mathur. The plaintiff alleges that Mrs. Mathur was making illegal construction in the property. On 6-4-1981 he brought a suit in the court of the subordinate judge, Mr. S. N. Gupta, for permanent injunction restraining Mrs. Mathur, her servants and agents, from carrying on any construction activities in the property. In. the suit the plaintiff made an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The subordinate judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, her agents and servants.. on 6-4-1981. On 6-6-81 he modified the injunction order. From this order they, the plaintiff and the defendants, appealed to the court of the senior sub judge. Those appeals were dismissed.(2) Now the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-24-1982
Reported in : [1984]55CompCas281(Bom)
1. The present Company Application No. 7 of 1982 arises out of summons for directions dated 14th January, 1982, for the following orders :'(a) The non-compliance of the order of this Hon'ble court dated 26th June, 1981, passed in Company Application No. 173 of 1981, be condoned. (b) That the order of this Hon'ble court dated 26th June, 1981, passed Company Application No. 173 of 1981 be vacated. (c) In the alternative to (b) above, the operation of the order dated 26th June, 1981, passed in Company Application No. 173 of 1981 be stayed until further orders of this Hon'ble court. (d) In the alternative to prayers (b) and (c) above, liberty be granted to the applicants to propound a fresh scheme of reconstruction under section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956, within three months or within such time as this Hon'ble court deems fit, of the finalisation of the proposal for reconstruction assistance made by the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Ltd.'2. In support of this summons,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-25-1982
Reported in : AIR1982SC1413; 1983CriLJ647; 1982(1)SCALE676; (1982)3SCC140; [1983]1SCR393; 1982(2)SLJ582(SC); 1982(14)LC695(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Validity and legality of an order made against each petitioner convening General Court Martial to try each petitioner in respect of the charges framed against each of them is questioned on diverse grounds but principally the composition in each of these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition No. 4903/81 the petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 22, 23, 25 and 40 of the Army Rules, 1954 ('rules' for short) as being violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. As certain contentions were common to all the three petitions they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts alleged on which legal formulations were founded may be briefly set out in respect of each petitioner.Re Writ Petition No. 4903/81 :Petitioner Lt. Col. Prithipal Singh Bedi was granted permanent regular commission in the Regiment of Artillery in 1958 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-31-1982
Reported in : AIR1983AP34
Ramachandra Rao, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions two common questions arise for consideration:(1) whether the proviso to S. 38-E (2) introduced by the Andhra pradesh (telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act 2/79 is unconstitutional? (2) whether the said proviso which came into force on 11-1-1979 has no retrospective operation? In order to decide the said questions, it is necessary to notice the facts which have led to the passing of the said Amendment Act 2/79 The Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 21/50 was enacted to amend the law relating to relations of landholders and tenants of agricultural land and the alienation of such land to enable landholders to prevent the excessive sub-division of agricultural holdings, to empower Government to assume in certain circumstances the management of agricultural lands to provide for the registration of co-operative Farms and to make further provision for matters incidental to the aforesaid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-13-1982
Reported in : ILR1983Delhi548
Prakash Narain, C.J. (1) The import, manuFacture,distribution and sale of drugs and cosmetics are, inter alia,regulated by the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafterreferred to as the Act. Sections 6, 12 and 33 of the Actempower the Central Government to frame rules in themanner and to the extent mentioned in the said sections.Such rules have been promulgated and are known as theDrags and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, hereinafter referred toas the Rules.(2) The Central Government by a notification No. O.S.R.27(E) dated 17/01/1981 made certain amendmentsto the Rules. The amended rules partly came into force on 1/08/1981 and partly on the date of the publication ofthe amended rules in the Official Gazette.' The challengebefore us is to these amendments, the contention being thatthe amendments contained in the notification dated 17/01/1981 are illegal, invalid, ultra virus and unenforceable.The consequent prayer is to quash the said notification andrestrain the Central Government and its off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-09-1982
Pathak, Actg. C.J. 1. This reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), at the instance of the assessee, had been referred to this court for decision on the following question; 'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 18(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was procedural in nature and so the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not necessary for levying penalty under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65 after its amendment by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Act, 1964 ?' 2. This reference relates to assessment years 1960-61 to 1964-65. The following chart shows the details relating to the various assessment years :Assessment yearThe due date for filing the returnThe date on which the return was filedDelay in complete monthsThe date on which the penalty was leviedThe amount of penalt...
Tag this Judgment!