Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 32 amendment of section 67 Year: 1991 Page 42 of about 422 results (0.576 seconds)

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Bakelite Hylam

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1994)(51)LC436Tri(Delhi)

..... . the reasoning adopted by the asst. collector in his order and the one approved by in formica's case proceeds on the wording of the .after its amendment cet which specifically includes paper which has been subjected to various treatments. the question for consideration is not whether 'paper' after treatment loses its identity as 'paper ..... nomenclature apart from its composition and value.formica india v. collector of central excise it was held that entry 17(2)(as it existed prior to its amendment in 1983 budget) covers paper all sorts including papers which have been subjected to treatments to a few examples of treatments have been specified in the entry. ..... the production or manufacture of goods produced or manufactured within the country. this court again in re the bill to amend section 20 of the sea customs act, 1878, and section 3 of the central excises & salt act, 1944 of the report referring to the aforesaid observations of the judicial committee reiterated that taxable even in the .....

Mccarthy Vs. Madigan

Court : US Supreme Court

..... employees: the hospital administrator, the chief psychologist, another psychologist, and a physician. mccarthy alleged that respondents had violated his constitutional rights under the eighth amendment by their deliberate indifference to his needs and medical condition resulting from a back operation and a history of psychiatric problems. on the first page of ..... congressional intent, we note that the general grievance procedure was neither enacted nor mandated by congress. respondents, however, urge that congress, in effect, has acted to require exhaustion by delegating power to the attorney general and the bureau of prisons to control and manage the federal prison system. see 18 u. s ..... rules of the prison were "validly and correctly applied to petitioner," requiring administrative review through a process culminating with the attorney general "would be to demand a futile act"); association of national advertisers, inc. v. ftc, 201 u. s. app. d. c. 165, 170-171, 627 f.2d 1151 , 1156-1157 ( .....

Maheswar Das Vs. State of Orissa and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1992(I)OLR443

B.L. Hansaria, C.J.1. This petition assails the change of the Government decision in establishing a Primary Health Centre by stating that the same shall be located at Barapur under Basudevpur Block instead of Kharasahapur under Bahanaga Block. The decision to establish the Primary Health Centre at Kharasahapur during the financial year 1990-91 was taken on 5-1-1991. That decision required fulfilment of the following conditions ; (1) The local people should provide minimum one acre of land duly pledged in favour of the Panchayat Samiti for the medical institution within a period of one month from the date of issue of the order. (2) The local people should provide temporary accommodation for the medical institution as well as for the staff by 20-1-1991 for operationalisation of the institution. (3) The local people should provide permanent buildings for the medical institution as well as for the staff within six months from the date of issue of the order. The order further stated that if...

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhagaban Bhuyan and anr.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : II(1992)ACC244; 1991ACJ726

A. Pasayat, J.1. This appeal is by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (described hereinafter as the 'insurer') challenging the award passed by the Third Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short the 'Tribunal').2. The background in which this appeal has come before this court may be stated as follows:Respondent No. 1 lodged a claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation for injuries sustained by him on account of accident which took place on 25.5.1985, by a vehicle bearing registration No. ORP 3383 of which respondent No. 2 is the owner. According to the claimant, while he was proceeding on a cycle from Bhubaneswar to Utara in connection with his business activities, suddenly the offending vehicle came at a high speed from behind and dashed against him, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was removed to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment, whereafter he was treated at his native place at Kamakshyanagar and subsequently he w...

Shree Durga Glass (P) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 1992(38)ECC193

L. Rath, J.1. An application made on 14.3.1982 for refund of excess duty paid having remained undisposed of, the petitioners have come before this Court seeking redress. The facts leading to the writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1, a manufacturer of glass-wares, filed six classification lists effective from May 1978 to April 1979 which lists were purported to be accepted by the order of the Assistant Collector dated 28.8.1980 (Annexure-5). By virtue of the acceptance of the classification lists the petitioner No. 1's liability to pay excise duty was accepted at 20% instead of 35% which was ordinarily payable since the Assistant Collector accepted the petitioner's plea of having adopted the manufacturing process of manually operated press having tank furnaces (hereinafter referred to as 'the manual process'). Such reduced tariff was payable in accordance with the Notification No. 329/77 of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, dated 26.11.197...

New Bank of India Vs. Bhupinder Singh and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1994]80CompCas501(P& H)

B.C. Varma, C.J. 1. This revision petition is by the plaintiff-bank whose application for impleading two persons, namely, Darshan Lal Gupta, the then manager of the bank and A.K. Jain of M/s. Dinesh Motors, as defendants has been rejected by the trial court. 2. The plaintiff-bank is alleged to have advanced a certain loan to Ram Singh (since dead) who is being represented by his legal representatives, Bhupinder Singh, and Hari Chand. The advance was against hypothecation of a tractor. The defendant-borrowers denied the claim. The plaintiff-bank then examined Darshan Lal Gupta, the then manager of the bank as a witness. In the witness box, Darshan Lal Gupta completely exonerated the defendant-borrowers stating that no loan was advanced to them. He denied any knowledge of having advanced any loan to the defendant-respondents for purchase of tractor or otherwise. The witness was then declared hostile. A.K. Jain, proprietor of M/s. Dinesh Motors, was also examined. He deposed to have deliv...

Raj Kumar Vs. Punjabi University, Patiala and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1992P& H94

ORDERAmarjeet Chaudhary J.1. The petitioner along with respondent No. 4 appeared in Master of Physical Education (one year Course) Examination in April, 1989, conducted by Punjabi University at Patiala. In the said examination respondent No. 4 obtained the highest marks-475 and stood first in the University The petitioner being dissatisfied with the result applied for re-evaluation of two papers i.e., Support Medicine and Planning and Supervision inPhysical Education. As a result of re-evaluation of the papers, the marks of the petitioner were increased in paper III from 48 to 79 and in paper V from 47 to 52 as a consequence of which the total marks stood changed from 448 to 484, as is apparent from the result-cum-detailed marks card Annexure P-2 petitioner thereafter moved representation dated 2-7-1990 to respondent No. 2 requesting that since the marks obtained by him were higher than that obtained by other candidates, therefore, he should be awarded University Medal and his case be ...

Smt. Kamla Rani Vs. Punjab Housing Development Board

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1992P& H202

ORDER1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated February 24, 1988, by which an amount of Rs. 2,000/ - deposited by her as earnest money for the allotment of a dwelling unit has been ordered to be forfeited. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.5. A few facts relevant for the decision of the case may be noticed.2. In the year 1981 the petitioner submitted an application to the Punjab Housing Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for the allotment of a dwelling unit. Along with the application she deposited an amount of Rs. 2000/- as earnest money. After six long years, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated March 17, 1987 that a dwelling unit of MIG category had been allotted to her in Phase XI SAS Nagar. A copy of the order of allotment is at Annexure P1 with the writ petition. Vide letter dated April 14, 1987 (Annexure P.2), the petitioner requested the Housing Commissioner of the Board to allot the unit on the ground floor as on account of medical ...

Gurcharan Singh Vs. Darshan Singh

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1992P& H207

ORDER1. The decree-holder Gurcharan Singh has challenged in this appeal judgment of Addl. District Judge,. Patiala, dated September 23, 1987, whereby appeal filed by Darshan Singh s/b Mangal Singh (judgment-debtor) was allowed and order of the trial Court dated October 21, 1986, dismissing objection filed by the judgment-debtor was set aside.2. The present petitioner obtained decree for the recovery of Rs. 9000/- with costs against the respondent on March 28, 1980 in a suit for specific performance of the contract. In execution of the decree, land in dispute was attached. At this stage it may be stated that this land was the same which was agreed to be sold for which suit for specific performance was filed. After attachment of the land notice under Order XXI, Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued to the judgment-debtor. However, no objections to the attachment were filed by the judgment-debtor.3. The land in dispute was sold by the judgment-debtor to one Wirsa Singh for abo...

Dr. Sameer Kaushal Vs. the State of Punjab and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1992P& H209

ORDER1. The petitioner a member of PCMS-II is aggrieved by the order of the respondents by which it has been held that 'his regular rural service up to January 31, 1991 is less than three years' and that he could not be considered as an in-service candidate. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioner's grievance is two-fold. He submits that while determining the petitioner's eligibility, the period of rural service rendered by him from February 7, 1987 to October 5, 1988 (one year seven months and twenty-nine days) at Rural Hospital, Daulatpur Chowk, district Una in the State of Himachal Pradesh has been wrongly excluded. He further submits that the eligibility had to be determined as on March 31, 1991 and not as on January 31, 1991.2. A brief reference to the facts would suffice. The petitioner passed his M.B.B.S. examination in the year 1984 from Government Medical College, Patiala. After doing one year Internship and one year house...