Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-03-2006
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Y.J. Trivedi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Naiar, Counsel representing the respondent.2. Sri Y.J. Trivedi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that the Original Petition is filed by Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, praying for revocation of the patent. The learned Counsel also would maintain that Section 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, deals with suits for infringement of patents. The Counsel also would maintain that the restraint order which is passed in relation to the breach of earmark in C.S. No. 25-A/2004 by the District Court, Indore is totally for a different purpose and the scope and the ambit of the said suit also being different, the said order would not come in the way of granting suspension as prayed for in the present applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-05-2006
Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In furtherance of order dated 20-8-2004 passed by the Full Bench, LPA (SR) No. 87377 of 2003 has been placed before the Larger Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether, after insertion of amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment 2. The background in which the aforementioned question has been referred to the Larger Bench deserves to be noticed first.3. By an award dated 1-10-1996, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi directed M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum to Sri 5. Surya Prakash Reddy in lieu of the death of his wife Rukmini caused in an accident which took place on 31-5-1991 on Tirupathi - Chandragiri Road. The appeal preferred by M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jodhpur
Decided on : Nov-07-2006
Reported in : (2007)107TTJ(Jodh.)831
1. The appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee, filed in relation to appellate order dt. 30th May, 2001 pertaining to asst.yr. 1998-99, are being disposed of by a common order.2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a doctor who derives income from a nursing home run in the name and style of Anand Nursing Home. On 24th March, 1998, the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs. 1,01,997 from profession and Rs. 7,400 from long-term capital gains. The AO made various additions like, on account of suppression of professional income amounting to Rs. 2,15,520, on account of inadequate household expenses amounting to Rs. 1,01,183 and on account of unexplained investment in the construction of the building amounting to Rs. 1,05,568. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and hence both the parties are aggrieved.3. The assessee has taken additional legal grounds, which challenge the survey proceedings. These additional gro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
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.-Phenyl-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. Gopakumar Nair Associates, Mumbai on behalf of M/s. CIPLA Ltd., Mumbai on July 5, 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 Manley of Switzerland on August 5, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
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 : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-15-2006
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. - 05-130 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 FONT SCAPS="1">EBAY INC. V. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EBAY INC. etal. v . MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05130.Argued March 29, 2006Decided May 15, 2006 Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondents subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondents motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. 401 F.3d 1323, 1339. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-03-2006
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present petition, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction, has been moved by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. The plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing Patent No. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. It is alleged that the invention was conceptualized visualized by the plaintiff/petitioners in the year 1999. The application for grant of patent was moved on 24.5.2002 and the patent, after making all the necessary inquiries and observance of the procedure, prescribed under the Patents Act and the rules framed thereunder, was granted on 11.7.2005. The patented device is an improvement over a local product known as 'Kilta' mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Feb-22-2006
1. M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited filed Bill of Entry No. 105274 dated 06.11.1992 for import of one Toshiba make TCT 300S Whole Body CT Scanning machine. It was cleared on 12.11.1992 without payment of duty on the strength of customs duty exemption certificate issued by the Directorate General of Health Services under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988. Show cause notice dated 24.5.1997 was issued to M/s Hissar Medical Diagnostic & Hospitals Limited that they were required to submit the installation certificate from Directorate General of Health Services within a reasonable period and no such certificate was produced by them demanding duty of Rs. 79,11,176/-. This show cause notice is still said to pending for decision.2. To check the fulfillment of other conditions prescribed under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated 01.03.1988, the office of the Accountant General (Audit), Haryana conducted an audit of this Hospital on 04.10.1996 and submitted their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on : Jun-29-2006
Reported in : (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)607
1. These are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A), Dehradun, dt. 29th Sept., 2005 for asst. yrs.1999-2000, 2002-03 and 2001-02.The assessee has also filed cross-objection in the asst. yr. 1999-2000. Following grounds of appeal have been taken by the Revenue: (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 51,25,370 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s S.K. Dynamics (P) Ltd. (2) The, order of learned CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored. (1) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the deductions under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 52,85,620 to the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the patents were in the name of Shri Rakesh Goel and not in the name of the company i.e. M/s ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-17-2006
Gonzales v. Oregon - 04-623 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 GONZALES V. OREGON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. v . OREGON etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04623.Argued October 5, 2005Decided January 17, 2006 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act), which was enacted in 1970 with the main objectives of combating drug abuse and controlling legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances, criminalizes, inter alia , the unauthorized distribution and dispensation of substances classified in any of its five schedules. The Attorney General may add, remove, or reschedule substances only after making particular findings, and on scientific and medical matters, he must accept the findings of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary). These proceedings must be on the record after an opportunity for comment. The dispute here involves controlled substances listed in Sched...
Tag this Judgment!