Array
(
    [0] =>  ..... .16. on 19.10.2006 when fao no. 293/06 was filed in the high court, chapter xix of the parent act as amended vide patents (amendment) act, 1999 continued to be in operation notwithstanding the enactment of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the patents (amendment) act, 2005 as the amended sections 116 and 117a were brought into force only vide notification dated 2.4.07. one more point needs to be .....  sections 116 and 117a suggested by section 47 of the patents (amendment) act, 2002, on 4.4.2005 the legislature enacted the patents (amendment) act, 2005. even here, not all provisions were simultaneously brought into force. only certain sections of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 were brought into force.13. vide section 23 of the patents (amendment) act, 2005, the then existing section 25 was substituted. the substituted section 25 reads as under ..... 
    [1] =>  .....  further contended that appellant has not challenged the vires of the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act, the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1962 or 1981 amendment act in this special appeal, hence he cannot be allowed to raise the said submission. he further contended that provisions ..... writ petition against the labour court award has been specifically excluded by the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act. 1962 as amended by the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act, 1981. sri baghel referred to and relied on judgment of apex court in : [1996]2scr224 , firdosh fatima ( ..... of apex court in 2002(2) supreme 419: sharda devi v. state of bihar, for contending that special appeal will lie even when the writ petition arises out of appellate order. sri srivastava also contended that provisions of the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act. 1981 in so  ..... 
    [2] =>  .....  official gazette. 22. on the date when the instant appeals were filed, chapter xix of the principal act, i.e. the patents act, 1970 as amended vide amendment act of 1999 continued to be operative notwithstanding the enactment of the patent amendment act, 2002 and the patent amendment act, 2005 since section 47 of the amendment act of 2002 which replaced chapter xix was being brought into force.23. 2 notifications were published in the official .....  2005, clause 'c' of sub-section 2 of section 116 of the principal act as substituted by section 47 of the patents amendment act, 2002 was omitted. further, vide section 61 of the amendment act of 2005, section 117a of the principal act as inserted by section 47 of the patents amendment act, 2002 was also amended, in that, in sub-section 2 of section 117a the words and figures 'section 20, section ..... 
    [3] =>  .....  the newly inserted section 117a instead of appeals to the high court under section 116. however, these amendments were not notified till 2nd april 2007. meanwhile another major set of amendments were introduced with effect from 1st january 2005 under the amendment act of 2005 .....  order under section 25, an appeal lay in terms of section 116 of the patents act to the high court. prior to 2005, there was no provision for a post-grant opposition. however, the 2005 amendments brought a significant change in this scheme.6. in 2002 amendments were made to the patents act to provide for appeals to the intellectual property appellate board (ipab) in terms of ..... 
    [4] =>  ..... upheld the validity of the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1962 as well as amendment act 33 of 1972. the relevant constitutional entries pertaining to state legislature regarding abolition of special appeals in the high court has been considered by  ..... in firdosh fatima's case (supra). there is no scope for any argument regarding challenge to vires of the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act, 1981. the constitution bench of this courtin hasinuddin khan and ors. v. deputy director of consolidation and ors. 0044/1979 : [1980]2scr1207 had  ..... paragraph 49:49. the second limb of submission of counsel for the appellant was to the effect that the uttarpradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act, 1981 is ultra vires. the counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that there being no prayer in the special appeal for declaring the ..... 
    [5] =>  ..... one and the same. the prayer in both the writ petitions is one and the same namely, for a declaration that section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970, amended by patents (amendment) act 15/2005, is unconstitutional. however, in the first writ petition there was an additional prayer in addition to the relief asked for. the additional prayer  ..... provisions, the union government of india made some temporary provisions in the act itself, which temporary provisions came to an end on and with effect from the coming into force of act 15/2005. prior to amending act 15/2005, there were amending acts 17/1999 and 38/2002. in the affidavits filed in support of both the writ petitions, .....  parliamentary debates on ordinance 7/2004, in the context of the amendment to section 3(d) are extensively extracted. a speech ..... 
    [6] =>  ..... is set aside and the matter is remitted to the controller.11. the position is disputed by counsel for the petitioners. according to him, even after the patents (amendment) act, 2005, doing away with the regime of grant of exclusive marketing rights, the application submitted by the petitioners for such right has not lost its utility. he .....  if he finds that right as claimed by the petitioners is to be given, then he shall make appropriate order conferring such right effective from may 03, 2002 when the application concerned attained finality, though in an order of rejection.29. copy of this order duly countersigned by the assistant registrar (court or assistant court  .....  2000 requested the controller to consider the case for grant of exclusive marketing right only with respect to claims 1--8. by an order dated may 3, 2002 the controller rejected the application.5. feeling aggrieved, the petitioners moved this court by filling a writ petition. by order dated december 16, 2004 that writ  ..... 
    [7] =>  .....  the any decision, order or direction of the controller. but this section 47 of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 as further amended by the section 60 of the 2004 ordinance and as further amended by section 61 of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 has yet not been brought into force even on the date of hearing by respondent .....  section 25 was available under section 116 (2) of the principal act for the reason that section 47 of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 as further amended by the section 60 of the 2004 ordinance and as further amended by section 61 of the patents (amendment) act, 2005, has not been brought into force though they continue to remain .....  that respondent 2 erred in construing that he could decide an opposition filed under section 25 of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patent amendment act 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the "old act") under section 15 of the patents act. according to the counsel the opposition having been filed under section 25(1) of the old ..... 
    [8] =>  ..... . therefore, considerable changes were made by 1970 act in contrast to the patents and designs act 1911. the act was amended again in march 1999 and june, 2002 to meet india's obligations under the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips), which forms part of the agreement establishing the world trade organization (wto). thereafter, the patents amendment act 15 of 2005 was brought into force .....  by way of ordinance, namely, patents (amendment) ordinance 2005 dated ..... 
    [9] =>  .....  and without making our order a precedent for future cases, we called for a panel/list of controllers duly qualified under section 116 of the patents act, as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2006.6. from that list submitted to us, we have opted for the name of dr. p.c. chakraborti, deputy controller of .....  patents & designs, who holds post- graduate degree of m.sc. (chemistry) as well as ph.d.7. we, accordingly, direct that all preliminaries will be completed  ..... account of absence of technical member in the intellectual property appellant board (ipab) constituted under the provisions of section 116 of the patents act, 1970. on 2nd april, 2007, central government appointed s. chandrasekaran as technical member (patent) of ipab vide notification of even date. on 3rd april, 2007, notification was issued notifying 2nd april, 2007 as the  ..... 
    [10] =>  .....  was obtained by the plaintiff on 20.4.1998. the suit was filed in the year 2004 complaining of the infringement of the said registered patent. section 104-a of the patents act, 1970 was inserted by way of patent amendment act, 2002 with effect from 20.5.2003. the same is applicable to the present suit.burden of proof59. section 104-a provides for burden of .....  for a term of seven years from 20th april 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th april 2005. however, with the enactment of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the framing of the patent rules, 2003, the plaintiffs patent bearing no.186857 has been subsequently extended for a period of twenty years from 20th april 1998 which expires on 20th april 2018. the certificate bearing no ..... 
    [11] =>  .....  insertion of section 107a of the act. learned senior counsel stated that the phrase "in a country other than india refers to the submission of information in countries ..... ) 169/2017 page 11 of 90 immediately after the expiry of patent in the indian market without having to wait for regulatory approval post patent expiry. however, this intent does not extend to ensuring the availability of the same in other countries. he relies on the notes on clauses of the patents (amendment) act 2002 as well as the joint parliamentary committee report pertaining to the ..... 
    [12] =>  ..... single judge of the high court in a proceeding under article 226 or 227 of the constitution of india. thus, amendment was made in the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 and further appeal (letters patent appeal) was abolished only against the judgment of a learned single judge in first appeal and right of appeal against ..... the division bench held that in view of section 100a of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002, appeals filed after 1-7-2002 are not maintainable and only such letters patent appeals saved are those filed prior to 1-7-2002 whether they have been admitted or not. the question in the instant appeal pertains to impact ..... constitution of india, which were there prior to the amendment act of 1999, was kept intact.19. the amendment act, 2002 has been brought into force from july 1, 2002, which reads as follows :'100-a. no further appeal in certain cases.-- notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in any other instrument  ..... 
    [13] =>  ..... ) of delhi high court act, 1966 which provides for a letters patent appeal against the judgment of a single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction which is known as .....  this court was dealing with a question which is as follows: "whether the letters patent appeal against the judgment of single judge of this court in first appeal would be maintainable having regard to the provisions of section 100a of the code of civil procedure as amended by amendment act, 2002?" 7. while dealing with the said issue, the bench adverted to section 10(1 ..... 
    [14] =>  .....  mr. divesh jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 placing reliance on the amended provision, i,e,, section 100a of the code that has been brought on the statute book by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 (in short 'the amending act') and the decision rendered by a division bench in l.p.a. no. 31/91 .....  the case of sachish chandra jain (supra) that contrary intention is manifest inasmuch as there is no saving in respect of the letters patent appeal as per section 16 of the amending act is erroneous inasmuch as the said analysis suffers from an inherent and intensive fallacy. to substantiate the aforesaid submissions the learned senior counsel has .....  also referred to the decision rendered in the case of vasudeva samiar (supra). the said decision was also concerned with the effect of the amended clause 15 of the letters patent on a pre-existing right of appeal. the apex court in the said decision referred to the decision rendered in the case of colonial sugar ..... 
    [15] =>  ..... 1976), chapter-ii-a containing sections 13a, 13b and 13c were inserted in the act only by the indian medicine central council (amendment) act, 2002, published in the government gazette on 9.12.2002 and enforced from 28.1.2003. chapter-ii-a was amended further by an amendment act of 2003, which was published in the gazette on 31.12.2003 and enforced with .....  were notified on 6.10.2006.16. since section 13-c came into force only with effect from 28.1.2003/7.11.2003 by the two amendment acts of 2002 and 2003, the regulations defined an existing medical college to mean a medical college established on or before 7.11.2003. it was under regulation 3 of ..... medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training or increased the admission capacity on or before the commencement of the indian medicine central council (amendment) act, 2003, such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of three years from the said commencement, permission of the central ..... 
    [16] =>  .....  note that the provision contained in cs (comm) 132/2016 page 74 of 96 section 5, prior to its amendment in 2002, by the patents (amendment) act, 2002, read as under :-"claiming substances intended for the use, or capable"5. inventions where only methods or processes of manufacture patentable - in the case of inventions - (a). of being used, as food or as medicine or drug, or (b ..... ). relating to substances prepared or produced by chemical processes (including alloys, optical glass, semi- conductors and inter-nietallic compounds), no patent ..... 
    [17] =>  ..... prior to the securities and exchange board of india (amendment) act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 2002 amendment act ). it was the submission of the private parties, that the amended provisions under the 2002 amendment act had no express or implied retrospective effect, and therefore, the amendment carried out through the 2002 amendment act , would not have any impact, particularly on the ..... , placed reliance on the statement of objects and reasons of the securities and exchange board of india (amendment) act, 2002. the same is extracted hereunder: the securities and exchange board of india (sebi) act, 1992 was enacted to provide for the establishment of a board to protect the interests of investors in .....  115, code of civil procedure, was held to be an order made or passed in appeal within the meaning of section 39 of the latters patent. mookerji, j., who delivered the judgment of the division bench referred to the sillem (1864) 10 v. observations of lord westbury in chappan rlc704 ..... 
    [18] =>  .....  xx xx xx 123. in the light of foregoing discussions it is declared that until the provisions in parts 1b and 1c of the companies act introduced by the companies (amendment) act, 2002, which have been found to be defective in as much as they are in breach of the basic constitutional scheme of separation of powers and  ..... and the jurisdiction and powers relating to winding up vested in the high courts. the government accepted the recommendations and passed the companies (second amendment) act, 2002. the reason for the said amendment was to avoid multiplicity of litigation before various fora and to reduce pendency of cases. the madras bar association filed a writ petition in  ..... dated 29.03.1974. the writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge against which a letters patent appeal (lpa) was preferred by the lic. during the pendency of the lpa, the lic (modification of settlement) act, 1976 came into force. the lpa was withdrawn in view of the subsequent legislation and the decision of ..... 
    [19] =>  ..... & crl.m.a.no.3071/2010 17 exploitation and makes contravention of article 23(1) an offence punishable in accordance with law.28. the constitution (86th amendment) act 2002 inserted article 21a in the constitution to provide free and compulsory education of all children in the age group of six to fourteen years as a fundamental right  ..... 2 of 1974), the state government may,1[within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) amendment act, 2006, by notification in the official gazette, constitute for every district,]. one or more juvenile justice boards for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred or  ..... 2009 & crl.m.a.no.3071/2010 76 95. these rules were re-affirmed by the earl of halsbury in eastman photographic material company v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trade marks lr [1898]. ac571in the following words: my lords, it appears to me that to construe the statute in question, it is not  ..... 
)