Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-03-1971
..... the royalty costs in order to compete with other manufacturers who have secured holdings that the patent is invalid, cutting the profitability of his business and perhaps assuring that he will never be in a financial position to challenge the patent in court. on the other hand, the manufacturer who has secured a judicial holding that the patent is invalid ..... solid a foundation." id. at 222. cf. technograph printed circuits, ltd. v. united states, 178 ct.cl. 543, 372 f.2d 969 (1967); agrashell, inc. v. bernard sirotta co., 281 f. ..... patent cases. in fiscal 1970, 32 such civil cases were terminated; seven, or about 22%, of these suits were patent cases. annual reports, 1968-1970, table c-9. [ footnote 34 ] "estoppel and cancellation" "(a) in any action in a federal court in which the issue of the validity or scope of a claim of a patent is properly before the court, and the owner of the patent as shown by the records of the patent office is a party or has been given notice as provided in subsection (c) of this section ..... treble damages under 4 of the clayton act by asserting that the patent was invalid because procured or enforced with knowledge of fraud practiced on the patent office, "provided the other elements necessary to a [monopolization case under 2 of the sherman act] are present." id. at 382 ..... lighting, 376 u. s. 234 (1964); kennedy, patent and antitrust policy: the search for a unitary theory, 35 geo.wash.l.rev. 512 (1967). [ footnote 39 ] united states v. bell telephone co., .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-21-1971
United States v. Vuitch - 402 U.S. 62 (1971) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971) United States v. Vuitch No. 84 Argued January 12, 1971 Decided April 21, 1971 402 U.S. 62 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Appellee physician's indictments for producing and attempting to produce abortions in violation of D.C.Code 22-201 was dismissed by the District Court on the ground of unconstitutional vagueness. That court held that the word "health" was overly vague, and, relying on Williams v. United States, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 138 F.2d 81, held that, once an abortion is proved, the burden is on the doctor to persuade the jury that it was necessary to preserve the mother's life or health. The Government appealed to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. 3731. Held: 1. Although the abortion statute applies only to the District of Columbia, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal under 3731, which pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-21-1971
..... 462 -463 (1957) (frankfurter, j., dissenting) -- a private cause of action for damages for violation of 14(a) of the securities exchange act of 1934, 48 stat. 895, 15 u.s.c. 78n(a). see 27, 48 ..... u. s. 426 the reporters' views on the exclusionary rule are also reflected in their comment on the proposed section: "the reporters wish to emphasize that they are not, as a matter of policy, wedded to the exclusionary rule as the sole or ..... it proper to venture the thought that, at the very least, such a remedy would be available for the most flagrant and patently unjustified sorts of police conduct. although litigants may not often choose to seek relief, it is important ..... remedy may not often be sought. see generally foote, tort remedies for police violations of individual rights, 39 minn.l.rev. 493 (1955). and the countervailing interests in efficient law enforcement, of course, argue for a ..... all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and arises under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the united states." the district court dismissed the complaint for lack ..... basis. 409 f.2d 718 (ca2 1969). we granted certiorari. 399 u.s. 905 (1970). we reverse. respondents do not argue that petitioner should be entirely without remedy for an unconstitutional invasion ..... infringed, and the murderer goes free." people v. defore, 242 n.y. 13, 21, 23-24, 150 n.e. 585, 587, 588 (1926). [ footnote 3/3 ] the plurality opinion in irvine v .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-29-1971
Reported in : AIR1972SC739; 38(1972)CLT116(SC); (1972)3SCC11; 1972(4)LC377(SC)
D.G. Palekar, J.1. The Petitioner (1) B. Sundar Rao, (2) P. Appala Swamy, (3) Raghunath Patro, (4) Budhi Rsmalingam and (5) Kidari Dandasi have applied to this Court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that they have been illegally detained. The petitioners along with some others were arrested in January, 1969 on a charge of conspiracy under Sections 120 r/w 399 IPC and 25(f) of Arms Act. The case came for hearing before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaipur. On 17 4 1971 the petitioners were acquitted. They were, however, arrested by the local police at 5.30 P.M. on the same day under Section 151 Cr. PC and produced before the Magistrate on the next day i.e. 18 4-1971. Since proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code were contemplated, they appear to have been remanded to Jail custody. On 20, April 1971 they were served with an Order dated 19-4-1971 passed by the District Magistrate, Koraput detaining them under Section of the Orissa Preventive Detent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-01-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC2384; 1971CriLJ1703; (1971)2SCC672; [1972]1SCR517; 1972(4)LC12(SC)
C.A. Vadialingam, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the validity of the order dated March 2, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Pargana, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 Act No. XIX of 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), directing the detention of the petitioner.2. The impugned order states that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner should be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as provided by Section 3(1) of the Act.3. According to the affidavit in reply of the District Magistrate, he reported Under Section 3(4) of the Act to the State Government on March 3, 1971 regarding the fact of his having passed the order of detention together with the grounds of detentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC2600; [1972]42CompCas125(SC); (1971)3SCC632; [1972]2SCR201
A.N. Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgment dated 3 April, 1970 of the High Court of Bombay confirming the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to wind up the respondent company.2. The appellants are a partnership firm. The partners are the Katakias. They are three brothers. The appellants carry on partnership business in the name of Madhu Wool Spinning Mills.3. The respondent company has the nominal capital of Rs. 10,00,000 divided into 2000 shares of Rs, 500 each. The issued subscribed and fully paid up capital of the company is Rs. 5,51,000 divided into 1,103 Equity shares of Rs. 500 each. The three Katakia brothers had three shares in the company. The other 1,100 shares were owned by N.C. Shah and other members described as the group of Bombay Traders.4. Prior to the incorporation of the company there was an agreement between the Bombay Traders and the appellants in the month of May, 1965. The Bombay Traders consisted of two groups known as the Nandkisho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-1971
Reported in : 1972LabIC627; (1972)ILLJ1SC; (1972)4SCC618; [1972]2SCR218; 1972(4)LC126(SC)
1. This is an appeal by Special Leave filed by the Union of India from the judgment in appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of the Delhi High Court confirming the decision of a learned Single Judge allowing Civil Writ No. 716-D of 1964 filed by the Respondent by quashing the order made by the President on 23rd April, 1963 compulsorily retiring the Respondent from service.2. The Respondent, Shri Sardar Bahadur, was employed as a Section Officer in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in the Steel & Cement Section (B) which along with other sections like Industries Act and Industrial Policy etc. was under the control of Shri P. S. Sundaram, Deputy Secretary in that Ministry at that time.3. In April, 1956, the Ministry invited applications for grant of licences to set up steel re-rolling mills.4. On June 14, 1956, one Shri Nand Kumar representing Messrs Ram Sarup Mam Chand and Messrs Mam Chand and Company of Calcutta applied for five licences to set up steel re-rolling mills. He also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-21-1971
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061a
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-21-1971
Reported in : AIR1972SC1061; [1972]83ITR582(SC); (1971)2SCC779; [1972]2SCR33
S.M. Sikri, C.J.1. This appeal is from the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ No. 2291 of 1970, which was heard by a Bench of five Judges. Four Judges held that Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it amended the relevant provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament. Pandit, J., however, held that the impugned Act was intra vires the legislative powers of Parliament. The High Court accordingly issued a direction to the effect that the Wealth Tax Act, as amended by Finance Act, 1969, insofar as it includes the capital value of the agricultural land for the purposes of computing net wealth, was ultra vires the Constitution of India.2. We may mention that the majority also held that the impugned Act was not a law with respect to entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution; in other words, it held that this tax was not covered by entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule.3. The Wealth Tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-30-1971
Reported in : AIR1971SC1783; (1972)3SCC186; [1971]SuppSCR597; 1971(III)LC662(SC)
Ray, J.1. This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution from the judgment dated 18 and 21 December, 1970 of the Bombay High Court.2. The Bombay High Court issued a writ of quo warranto declaring that respondent No. 3 Dr. Balkrishna Pandurang Apte is not entitled to act as the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Poona is pursuance of the election held on 9 May, 1970 and further restraining him from acting as the Vice-Chancellor.3. H.V. Pataskar, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Poona died on 21 February, 1970. The Governor of Bombay who is the Chancellor of the University then nominated Maha Mahopadhyaya Datto Vaman Potdar to act as the Vice-Chancellor until the date on which another Vice-Chancellor was elected under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Poona University Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).4. Under Section 12 of the Act the Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University. Under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!