Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2002 section 32 amendment of section 67 Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 4,993 results (1.872 seconds)

Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC862; 2005(3)BomCR139; JT2005(1)SC370; 2005(2)MhLj392; 2005(1)MPHT497; 2005MPLJ181(SC); (2005)2SCC591; 2005(2)LC812(SC)

..... reason, and at any stage remove for trial by itself any suit or proceeding from the city court.'25. by section 3 of letters patent (amendment) act, 1948, clause 12 of the letters patent was amended. the amended portion reads:-'.......the high court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of ..... provisions of the constitution as stated in article 245(1). it is for the legislature of the state to define the frontier of the powers or jurisdiction exercisable by its high court.'67. in the same judgment, the high court in regard to entry 78 of list i, went on to say that '....the subject relating to `constitution and organization of high courts ..... , cannot be accepted.58. reference was made to the judgment of the full bench of the delhi high court in geetika panwar v. government of nct of delhi and ors., 99 (2002) dlt 840. the learned counsel contended that the submissions of the learned attorney general made before the delhi high court, as noticed in this judgment, were ..... act are arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the constitution; provisions contained in 1986 act are beyond the legislative competence of the state legislature; that a right of appeal is a substantive right and one appeal on facts of law is a necessary ingredient of a system of justice; one appeal is provided in various state or central enactments; in case even one appeal is not provided, it would result in serious consequences leading to unreasonable denial of justice. 32 .....

Partap Singh Vs. Smt. Satya Devi and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2005HP37

M.R. Verma, J.1. This order is meant to dispose of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of the present appeal.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the said preliminary objection are that predecessor-in-interest of the respondents-plaintiffs (hereafter referred to as 'the respondents') instituted a suit against the appellant defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the appellant') for rendition of accounts and recovery of the due amount i.e. Rs. 15,000/-. The trial Court decreed the suit for rendition of accounts to the extent of Rs. 1,000/-. The respondents preferred an appeal which -was allowed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur and a decree for recovery of Rs. 14,000/- along with interest was passed in favour of the respondents against the appellant. The aggrieved appellant preferred the present appeal. The Memorandum of Appeal was initially filed on 22-12-2001, however, it was held under various objecti...

iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC514; 2005(2)ALD34(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)191; 2005(2)ALT32(SC); 2005(2)AWC1872(SC); 2005(3)BomCR781; (2005)107BOMLR967; (2005)2CALLT59(SC); 2005(1)CTC304; 118(2005)D

..... 4 c.p.c. only a specific provision to the contrary can exclude the special law. the specific provision would be a provision like section 100a.'48. far from doing away with the letters patent, the amending act of 2002 has left unscathed the provisions of section 129 and what follows therefrom. the contention must, therefore, fail.49. in the result, we are of the view that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the high court under ..... , , were also relied upon to contend that when there is an apparent conflict between different provisions of a statute, the court must give effect to all of them by adopting the principle of harmonious construction. 32. there cannot be any doubt about the principle of harmonious construction. however, what confronts us is not a mere question of two independent provisions of the cpc being in conflict. the provisions of the cpc, which we have ..... obstante clause: ''67. a clause beginning with the expression 'notwithstanding anything contained in the act or in some particular provision in the act or in some particular act or in any law for the time being in force, or in any contract' is more often than not appended to a section in the beginning with a view to give the enacting part of the section in case of conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the act or the contract mentioned in the non obstante clause. it is equivalent to saying that in spite of the provision of the act or any other act mentioned in the non .....

V.K. Walnekar and ors. Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya GramIn Bank and a ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2006Chh92

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. In this batch of appeals, a question to be considered is whether the Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable in this High Court?2. The resume necessary for adjudication is as under:The State of Chhattisgarh came into existence on 1st of November 2000, that is the appointed day, pursuant to M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000). It is a successor State. Part IV of the Act of 2000 relates to establishment of the High Court. Section 21 provides that from the appointed day, there shall be a separate High Court for the State of Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred as 'the High Court of Chhattisgarh') and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall become the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Section 22 provides for Judges of Chhattisgarh High Court and Section 23 provides for the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court. It has been stipulated in the Act of 2000 that the High Court of Chhattisgarh shall have, in respect of ...

Wockhardt Limited Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2006)1MLJ542; 2006(32)PTC65(Mad)

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Wockhardt Limited, a pharmaceutical company, appellant herein, is the holder of Process Patent, EMR and Drug Licence for the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparation, namely, Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.2. Hetero Drugs Limited, first respondent herein, infringing the Patent and EMR granted to the appellant, started manufacturing the same product and selling in the market. On coming to know of the same, appellant filed a suit in C.S. No. 456 of 2005 for permanent injunction, restraining Hetero Drugs Limited, Nicholas Piramal (India) Limited and Adyar Drug House, respondents 1 to 3, from infringing the (i) Patent No. 188847; (ii) EMR granted to it and (iii) restraining the respondents from manufacturing or in any way using the composition, which the appellant invented, for manufacture of Nadifloxacin 1% Cream.3. Pending the suit, similar orders of ad-interim injunction were sought for in O.A. Nos. 544 to 546 of 2005 and, by an order dated 31.05.2005, interim injuncti...

Merck Kgaa Vs. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.

Court : US Supreme Court

Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. - 03-1237 (2005) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2004 MERCK KGAA V. INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MERCK KGaA v . INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES I, LTD., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 031237.Argued April 20, 2005Decided June 13, 2005 It is not an act of [patent] infringement to use or import into the United States a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the use of drugs. 35 U. S. C. 271(e)(1). The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (FDCA) is such a law. Under the FDCA, a drug maker must submit research data to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in an investigational new drug application (IND) when seeking authorization to conduct human clinical trials, and in a new drug application (NDA) when seeking authorization to market a new drug. Respondents ...

Shri Bharatbhai J. Vyas, Prop. Vs. Ito

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2005)279ITR41(Ahd.)

1. This is Assessee's appeal against the order of the CIT(A)dated 26-2-2004.2. Ground No. 2 challenging disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure is not pressed, hence dismissed. Ground No. 3 regarding interest is contended to be consequential in nature, which does not require our adjudication, that leaves Ground No. 1, which is as under: "I(a) The learned CIT(A)-VI has grievously erred in confirming depreciation claimed on goodwill for an amount of Rs. 1,89,375/- on misinterpretation of provision of Section 32 since the appellant has fulfilled all the requisites as mentioned in the statute. " 3. Brief facts are - The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee was a partner in M/s. Nodule Cast along with Shri J.B. Vyas, his father and one Shri O.A. Lokhandwala. The firm was dissolved and a sum of Rs. 15.13 lacs was paid as goodwill to Shri Lokhandwala. The aseessee during the assessment proceedings stated that in view of the provisions of Section 32 relevant from A.Y...

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Banti Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : IV(2005)ACC121; 2007ACJ879; (2005)141PLR145

Hemant Gupta, J.1. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is the question raised.2. The said question arises on account of substitution of Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') w.e.f. 01.07.2002 vide Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002. The said substituted section reads as under:-'100-A. No further appeal in certain cases:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in an other instrument having the force of law or in another law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgment and decree of such Single Judge.'3. A Seven Judges Full Bench of this Co...

Bharatbhai J. Vyas Vs. Ito (Baroda)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2005)97ITD248(Ahd.)

This is assessee's appeal against the order of the CIT (A), dated 26-2-2004.Ground No. 2 challenging disallowance of miscellaneous expenditure is not pressed, hence dismissed. Ground No. 3 regarding interest is contended to be consequential in nature, which does not require our adjudication that leaves Ground No. 1, which is as under: "I(a) The learned CIT (A)-VI has grievously erred in confirming depreciation claimed on goodwill for an amount of Rs. 1,89,375 on misinterpretation of provision of section 32 since the appellant has fulfilled all the requisites as mentioned in the statutes." Brief facts are - The assessing officer during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee was a partner in M/s. Nodule Cast along with Shri J.B. Vyas, his father and one Shri O.A. Lokhandwala.The firm was dissolved and a sum of Rs. 15.15 lacs was paid as goodwill to Shri Lokhandwala. The assessee during the assessment proceedings stated that in view of the provisions of section 32 relevant fr...

Smt. Mahabiri Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana, Through the Coll ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)142PLR434

Viney Mittal, J.1. This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals as all the appeals have arisen out of common acquisition proceedings.2. Vide a notification dated April 10, 1989, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), 132.19 acres of land situated within the municipal limits of Karnal, comprised in Kasba Karnal was sought to be acquired for the extension of new Grain Market, subsequently some land was exempted. Vide an award dated March 13,1992, the Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre. The claimant landowners were dissatisfied with the compensation. They, accordingly, claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was duly referred. Before the reference court, the parties led their respective evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid material, the learned reference court categorised the land in two categories. Land situated beyon...