Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Page 1 of about 12,419 results (0.703 seconds)

Puneet Kaushik and anr Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Delhi

..... similar nature directing the respondent authorities to declare that a pct application filed in india at the indian receiving office (ro/in) would not require a prior permission under section 39 of the patents act, 1970; and issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction of a similar nature directing the respondent authorities to declare the indian receiving office (ro/in ..... qualification with respect to the applications made outside india and in view of the unambiguous expressions used in section 39 the scope of the section cannot be restricted only to the inventions of a particular nature.11. admittedly, the written permit in terms of section 39 of the patents act, 1970 came to be granted to the petitioner only on 27.09.2012, though the international application was ..... was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 39 has to be read in the light of section 35, 36 and 38 and if so read, section 39 would apply to only those inventions which are relevant for defence purposes or atomic energy and national security considerations arise to the invention on account of its nature. the contention was that the legislative ..... stipulate in this regard in the light of the provisions of pct in this regard. in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. v.k.jain, j september 23 2013 rd/bg .....

Puneet Kaushik and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... applying for a patent for an invention outside india unless either one of two conditions is satisfied:i) written permission by or on behalf of the controller for grant ..... to apply secrecy directions which shall prevent the flow of sensitive information relating to the country s security, outside india.19. section 39 patents act, 1970 stipulates that an indian resident is prohibited from ..... reveals that the provision contained in section 39 patent act, 1970 was deleted by the patents (amendment) act, 1999. however, in the report of the joint committee presented to the rajya sabha on the 19th december 2001, the committee members felt that section 39 should be reintroduced to prevent flow of sensitive information, relating to the country s security, outside india. therefore, the purpose of section 39 is to enable the controller .....

Puneet Kaushik and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Court : Delhi

..... applying for a patent for an invention outside india unless either one of two conditions is satisfied:i) written permission by or on behalf of the controller for grant ..... to apply secrecy directions which shall prevent the flow of sensitive information relating to the country s security, outside india.19. section 39 patents act, 1970 stipulates that an indian resident is prohibited from ..... reveals that the provision contained in section 39 patent act, 1970 was deleted by the patents (amendment) act, 1999. however, in the report of the joint committee presented to the rajya sabha on the 19th december 2001, the committee members felt that section 39 should be reintroduced to prevent flow of sensitive information, relating to the country s security, outside india. therefore, the purpose of section 39 is to enable the controller .....

Hari Shankar Gupta Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1974Delhi771; 1974RLR335

..... the question that arises in this appeal under section 39 of the indian arbitration act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the act') and section 10 of the delhi high court act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the high court act') is as to its maintainability either under section 39 of the arbitration act or under section 10 of the high court act or under clause 10 of the letters patent. the appeal has been filed in the ..... of certain orders. the right of appeal against other orders is expressly taken away. if by express provision contained in section 39(1) a right to appeal from a judgment which may otherwise be available under the letters patent is restricted, there is no ground turn holding that cl. (2) does not similarly restrict the exercise of appellate power granted by the letters ..... decision on issue no. 1, issue no. 5 was decided against the appellant and the application was dismissed as being barred by time, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. (7) aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant has come up in appeal. (8) a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent at the outset that the ..... patent.(35) in university of delhi and another v. hafiz mohd. said and others, : air1972delhi102 a full bench of this court was .....

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Aradhana Trading Co. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847

..... clause (2) of section 39 of the arbitration act, an appeal against an appellate order under the letters patent was not maintainable. the restriction to appeal contained under sub-sec. (2) of section 39 was applicable to letters patent. so restriction contained under sub-sec.(1) of sec. 39 of arbitration act shall also be applicable.14. the question which ..... . some cases, a reference of which has been made earlier relate to the question of maintainability of a second appeal in letters patent against the appellate order passed under section 39(1) of the arbitration act as in the case of mohindra supply company (supra) where the bench of four hon'ble judges held that in view of ..... where it was held that the second appeal under section 100 cpc or under the letters patent against an appellate order was barred by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 39. here we find that there is yet another constraint as provided under sub- section (1) of section 39 of the arbitration act itself and it is emphatic too when it says ..... judge under order ix rule 13 cpc. it would however be relevant for the purpose that restriction on appeal under section 39 of arbitration act shall be applicable to appeals under any provision of law, may be cpc or letters patent. 11. so far the appellants are concerned they placed reliance on a case reported in : [1953]4scr1028 ..... of the discussion held above, we find no force in the appeals and they are dismissed. there would however be no order as to costs. .....

Progressive Career Academy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Fiit Jee Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... the provisions of section 39(1) and (2) of the arbitration act. 17. under the code of 1908, the right to appeal under the letters patent was saved both by section 4 and the clause contained in section 104(1), but by the arbitration act of 1940, the jurisdiction of the court under any other law for ..... . where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule, vide swedish match ab v. securities and exchange board of india (2004) 11 scc 641 : air 2004 sc 4219. as held in prakash nath khanna v. cit (2004) 9 scc 686, the language employed in a ..... expression authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court contained in section 39(1) of the arbitration act which by implication reserves the jurisdiction under the letters patent to entertain an appeal against the order passed in arbitration proceedings. therefore, in so far as letters patent deal with appeals against orders passed in arbitration proceedings, they must be read subject to ..... is published, whereupon objections can be raised also on the platform of the alleged bias of the tribunal. this challenge is possible provided the grievance is articulated in consonance with section 13 of the a&c act. 23. we refrain from imposing costs. .....

Lmj International Ltd. Vs. Sea Stream Navigation Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR2007Cal260,2008(1)ARBLR83(Cal),(2007)3CALLT424(HC)

..... examined the scope and purport of clause 15 of the letters patent in the face of the provision of section 39 of the 1940 act and section 4 of the civil procedure code. scanning the language used in section 39 the learned judges in paragraph 16 of the judgment came to conclusion that:.by section 39 of the act, a right of appeal was conferred upon litigants in arbitration proceedings ..... the applicability of provision of clause 15 of the letters patent in connection with the provision of section 116 of the representation of the people act. this judgment of supreme court while overruling the judgments reported in : air1986mp165 and ilr (1970) 2 mad 183 held that the appellate provision of the aforesaid act will override the provisions of clause 15 of the letters ..... patent. this judgment observed that the representation of the people act is a self- ..... , prima facie, this appeal is competent under this clause. the contention that the appeal is incompetent is ultimately founded on clause 44 of the letters patent, read of course, with sub-section (2) of section 39. clause 44 is in general terms and is of an omnibus nature. it does not specifically refer to any right of appeal conferred by any of .....

Suresh Jayantilal Ajmera and Others Vs. Rasiklal Gokaldas Ajmera and O ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1997Bom279; 1997(2)BomCR30; 1997(1)MhLj327

..... time being in force' is, so far as section 39(1) of the act is concerned, to take away the right of appeal given under cl. 15 of the letters patent . in our view, recourse of cl. of the 15 of the letters patent for the purpose of considering maintainability of this appeal ..... it was also submitted that no appeal lies from the impugned order even under caluse 15 of the letters patent in view of the specific prohibition contained in section 39 of the act. in support of the above contentions, reliance was placed by mr. tulzapurkar on the decisions of the supreme ..... the alternative, mr. doctor a submits that even if the no appeal lies from the above order under section 39(1) of the arbitration act, appeal would be maintainable under clause 15 of the letters patent. reliance is placed in support of this contention on the decision of madras high court in martirosi v. ..... time for making an award, cannot be construed as meaning an order superseding the arbitration so as to be appealable under sub-section (1) of section 39 of the act. 10. we are supported in our above conclusion by the division bench decision of this court in shiv omkar v. bansidhar ..... act or under clause 15 of the letters patent. accordingly, we accept the preliminary objection of the learned counsel for the respondents mr. tulzapurkar to the maintainability of this appeal and dismiss the same of that ground itself without going into the merits of the case. 15. in the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs .....

Moolchand Kevalchand Daga Vs. Kissindoss Girdhardoss

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1962Mad52

..... appeal form one judge of high court to two or more judges of same court;7. there is no modification of cl. 10 of the letters patent by sec. 39 of the arbitration act either expressly or by necessary intendment; and8. the fact that appeals were expressly provided to the king in council presupposes ..... are therefore of opinion that there is nothing in sec. 39(2) of the arbitration act which compels us to hold that cl. 15 of the letters patent has been amended and altered there by and the right of appeal conferred by that clause restricted in ..... aspects of the question, we have arrived at the conclusion that the expression "second appeal" in sec. 39(2) of the arbitration act would not apply to an appeal under cl. 15 of the letters patent form one judge of the high court to two or more judges of the same court. we ..... lie under any other enactment, and, in our view, therefore, the right of appeal, which was given by cl. 15 of the letters patent, is by necessary implication taken away by sub-sec. (2) of sec. 39."the decision of the calcutta high court in r. wright and partner ltd. v. governor general in council, ..... act the suit filed by the appellant on the promissory note should be stayed and the matter referred to arbitration. we are clearly of opinion that sec. 34 has no application to this case. the application for stay was misconceived. this appeal is allowed and the other of the learned city civil judge dismissing the application is restored with costs .....

Rebati Ranjan Chakravarti Vs. Suranjan Chakravarti and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1963Cal642

..... high court (punjab) order, 1947, applied to the east punjab high court. before the appellate bench, the governor-general contended that the appeal under we letters patent was prohibited by section 39(2) of the indian arbitration act. the question whether the appeal was maintainable was referred to a full bench of the high court. the full bench opinion (sic) that an appeal from ..... the judgment of a single judge exercising appellate powers did me under clause 10 of the letters patent, notwithstanding the bar contained in section 39(2) of the arbitration act. after the opinion of the full bench was delivered, a division bench considered the appeal on its merits and set aside the order of falshaw ..... high court the appeal was allowed and it was held that under the circumstances, no appeal lay under clause 10 of the letters patent. although the point that arose was under sub-section (2) of section 39 it necessarily involved sub-section (1) as well, and the general question as to appeals in the case of arbitration proceedings has been dealt with, including the question ..... being so, we must hold that no appeal lies in the present case and the appeal must be dismissed upon this preliminary point. there will be no order as to costs. we have already stated that the question raised on the merits is an extremely important one, but we have no doubt that it will be decided in an appropriate case .....