Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents act 1970 39 of 1970 section 150 security for costs Year: 2007 Page 1 of about 397 results (1.534 seconds)

Lmj International Ltd. Vs. Sea Stream Navigation Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

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

Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 17th September, 2003 passed by a learned single Judge in Execution Case No. 28 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has granted reliefs in terms of prayers in column 10 of the Tabular Statement enforcing a foreign award under the provisions of Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred in short as the said Act). This appeal was admitted by a judgment and order dated 19th September, 2003 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Seth and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sinha (as their Lordships then were) subject to the question of maintainability and preliminary objection. By this order no formal paper book was asked to be filed dispensing with other formalities and treating the application as informal paper book, however, liberty was granted to include additional papers in the informal supplementary pape...

Bilcare Limited Vs. the Supreme Industries Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2007(2)13; 2007(34)PTC444(Del)

J.M. Malik, J. 1. This order shall decide the two appeals mentioned above which entail similar questions of facts and law. The controversy in these two appeals swirls around the question, 'is there any presumption in favor of the validity of the patent for grant of temporary injunction in favor of patentee.' The present appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Trial Court dated 7th February, 2007, wherein the Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the applications filed by the defendants/ respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were permitted and ex parte injunction orders dated 6th October, 2006 were vacated. However, the defendants/respondents were directed to maintain accounts of the sales they make of the impugned product. The defendants/respondents were also directed to submit the statement of accounts after every three months in the court and to submit undertakings that they would pay the damages...

Starlinger and Co. Ges.M.B.H. Vs. Lohia Starlinger Limited and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [2008]1444CompCas642(All)

Sunil Ambwani, J.1. Heard Shri P.V. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Dhruv Wahi, Shri Saral Srivastava and Ms. Namrata Kapoor for STARLINGER & Co. Ges.m.b.H, Sonnenuhrgasse 4, A-1060 Vienna, Austria, the appellant and Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Bindu Saxena, Shri Yatindra Shukla and Shri Saurabh Srivastava for M/s Lohia Starlinger Limited, D-3/A, Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur and other respondents.2. This appeal under Section 10F of the Companies Act, 1956 arises out of an order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Company Law Board (CLB), Principal Bench, New Delhi in the Company Petition No. 62 of 2005, on a Company Application Nos. 365 & 324 of 2006 by which the CLB held that the issues raised by the application filed by the appellant are the matters to be decided on conclusion of main proceedings and permitted the respondent company to implement the decision taken in AGM dated 30.9.2006 relating to amendment of the objects clause of the Memorandum of Association ...

Garware-wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. A.i. Chopra and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599

A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...

M.M. Nissim and Co. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2002-03. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) XI at Mumbai dated 24-6-2003. The appeal arises out of the assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. The first ground raised by the assessee in this appeal reads as follows: The learned Commissioner (Appeals) XI erred in confirming that the Appellant was not entitled to depreciation of Rs. 14,03,100 in respect of premium paid for acquiring office premises amounting to Rs. 1,40,31,000.3. The assessee had acquired office premises during the previous year under appeal, at Barodawala Mansion, Worli. The premises were acquired as tenants. As part of the deal, the assessee had paid the amount of Rs. 1,40,31,000 for acquiring the premises on perpetual lease. The amount was paid by the assessee to the outgoing tenants for vacating the premises earlier held by them. The owners of the property are not liable to...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tvs Lean Logistics Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2007)212CTR(Mad)523; [2007]293ITR432(Mad)

P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The Revenue has preferred these appeals on a vexed substantial question of law as to whether the expenditure on construction of building in a leasehold premises would amount to revenue expenditure, contrary to the clear provisions of Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, under the following facts and circumstances of the case.2.1. The relevant assessment years are 2001-02 and 2002-03 respectively. The assessee claimed the expenditure incurred by it on construction of a building, concededly on leasehold land, as revenue in nature. But, the Assessing Officer treated it as capital expenditure by orders dated 23.3.2004 and 7.2.2005 respectively. Against the said orders, the assessee preferred appeals, which were, by common order dated 21.9.2005 dismissed by the Commissioner, upholding the order of the Assessing Officer. 2.2. Contending that Explanation 1 to Section 32(1) of the Act would cover the situations of construction on premises taken on lease, s...

Social Jurist, a Lawyers Group Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 140(2007)DLT698

Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The constitutional mandate for assuring the dignity of individual is contained in the very preamble of the Constitution of India. To live with dignity would take within its ambit legitimate expectation of the citizens of the country for being provided with good environment and health care. Unlike right to education, right to health and healthy environment has so far not been incorporated in the fundamental rights of the people of India. However, an obligation in the form of directive principle under Article 47 of the Constitution is casted upon the State to raising of standard of living of its people and improvement of public health among its primary duties. The State has to ensure that this obligation is not rendered nugatory by inaction or inadequate action on the part of the State and its instrumentalities. Leaving aside its dogmatic approach, it must ameliorate by taking recourse to policies and steps and by involving other appropriate forums to achieve the o...

Hindustan Lever Limited Vs. Mr. Lalit Wadhwa and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2007(3)192; 2007(35)PTC377(Del)

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to deal with I.A. No. 9649/2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and I.A. No. 9648/2006, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the defendants.2. By the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected since it does not disclose a cause of action; that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorised person, and; that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.3. I.A. No. 9648/2006 has been filed to say that defendant No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and that he has been imp leaded as defendant No. 1 merely to avoid the proceedings being noticed by the defendants in the cause list and with a view to obtain an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction behind the back of the defendant No. 2 and 3.4. Taking up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC first, I proceed to deal with the objections that the plaint and the documents filed with ...

Bilcare Limited Vs. Amartara Private Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : LC2007(2)42

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 10848/2006 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)IA No. 11160/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC BY THE DEFENDANT)IA No. 13971/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)1. The claim of the plaintiff of patent violation by the defendant in respect of moralized packaging film patent of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the patent bearing No. 197823 in respect of the said moralized packaging films in pursuance to a patent granted on 12.04.2006 as per an application of the plaintiff dated 03.03.2004. The patent comprises of 21 claims of which there is a parent claim and there are twenty dependent claims depending directly or indirectly on the parent claim. The description of the invention as per the parent claim is as under:a multilayer, thermo formable, translucent food and pharmaceutical packaging film consisting of a core layer of 100-1000 microns thickness of food ...

Yeda Research and Development Company Limited (Appellants) Vs. Rhone-p ...

Court : House of Lords

LORD HOFFMANN My Lords, 1. Twenty years ago some scientists in the Department of Chemical Immunology at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel were experimenting with forms of chemical treatment for cancer. They were trying to combine two different forms of treatment to obtain a synthesis which was more effective than either on its own. One was the use of monoclonal antibodies to bind to epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptors, which are often abundant on the surface of cancer cells. These antibodies are cytostatic, that is, they inhibit the growth of the cancer cells but do not kill them. The other treatment was the use of anti-neoplastic drugs which are cytotoxic, that is, they kill cancer cells. But their disadvantage is that they kill healthy cells as well. Their toxicity to healthy cells limits the doses in which they can be administered. 2. The Weizmann scientists say that their first idea was to try an antibody which was conjugated, that is, chemically coupled, to an anti-...