Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 14 substitution of new sections for sections 14 and 15 Court: karnataka Page 8 of about 1,082 results (0.167 seconds)

Sobha Projects and Trade Private Limited Vs. Gammon India Limited

Court : Karnataka

..... respondent-company is concerned that part of clause 45 clearly stands over-ridden by the statutory amendment of the act w.e.f. 23.10.2015. the amended act no.3 of 2016 was given retrospective effect to be operative from 23.10.2015 and this amendment act came to be dealt with by this court, after dealing the cited supreme court decisions rendered ..... invalid in law. 7. it may be noticed here that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent were prior to the amendment of section 11 of the act effected by act no.3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.8. on the other hand, mr.udaya holla, senior counsel appearing with mr.vivek holla, ..... been and after the words designated by delete the words him is final and insert the words the high court, and no appeal, including letters patent appeal, shall lie against such order. [note : this amendment ensures that a) an affirmative judicial finding regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement; and (b) the date of order 08-12-2017 c. .....

Smt. G K Akshata Vs. V Raghavendra

Court : Karnataka

..... the reported decisions considered hereinabove and the facts of the case on hand, i am of the view that the learned magistrate has committed a patent illegality in granting the amendment application. by the proposed amendment, the complainants have stated that the partners, being responsible for conduct of the day-to-day affairs and business of the firm are vicariously ..... mehta, (2018) 1 scc560: (2018) 1 scc (civ) 405 : (2018) 1 scc (cri) 477]. do not lay down correct law. to conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the act empowering the trial courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under section 138 shall be - 52 - nc:2024. khc:38869 crl.p no.9909 of 2017 c ..... , jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner." section 24 deals with the effect of notice to a partner. such notice may be binding if the following conditions are satisfied:9. ppeal (civil) 5345/2005 - 38 - nc:2024. khc:38869 crl.p no.9909 .....

Smt K R Aruna Prasad Vs. Sri V Raghavendra

Court : Karnataka

..... the reported decisions considered hereinabove and the facts of the case on hand, i am of the view that the learned magistrate has committed a patent illegality in granting the amendment application. by the proposed amendment, the complainants have stated that the partners, being responsible for conduct of the day-to-day affairs and business of the firm are vicariously ..... mehta, (2018) 1 scc560: (2018) 1 scc (civ) 405 : (2018) 1 scc (cri) 477]. do not lay down correct law. to conclusively deal with this aspect, amendment to the act empowering the trial courts to reconsider/recall summons in respect of complaints under section 138 shall be - 52 - nc:2024. khc:38869 crl.p no.9909 of 2017 c ..... , jointly with all the other partners and also severally for all acts of the firm done while he is a partner." section 24 deals with the effect of notice to a partner. such notice may be binding if the following conditions are satisfied:9. ppeal (civil) 5345/2005 - 38 - nc:2024. khc:38869 crl.p no.9909 .....

Cit Vs. Mcdowell and Co. Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [2004]136TAXMAN716(Kar)

..... . but, in that case, the point as to whether the original order can be recalled while exercising power under section 254(2) of income tax act or whether only an order of amendment should be passed was not considered.6.3 in smt. illa dalmia case (supra) the tribunal had disposed of an appeal of the assessee under section ..... the original order, rehear the matter and replace the original order by a fresh order. the purpose can be achieved by continuing the original order and passing an amendment order stating whatever is necessary to rectify the mistake apparent from the record. whether the issue involved is one or more makes no difference, as what is contemplated ..... is intended... a mistake which can be rectified under section 254(2) is one which is patent, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent or argument or elaboration. the language used in section 254(2) makes it clear that only amendment to the order passed under section 254(1) is permissible when it is brought to the .....

Prism Cement Limited, Bangalore Vs. D.C.S. Limited, Himayath Nagar, Hy ...

Court : Karnataka

..... a) an award, which is.- (i) contrary to substantive provisions of law; or (ii) the provisions of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996; or (iii) against the terms of the respective contract; or (iv) patently illegal; or (v) prejudicial to the rights of the parties, is open to interference by the court under section 34(2) of ..... the schedules hereto constitute the entire agreement between the parties on its subject and supersede all prior agreements, arrangements or understandings, whether verbal, written or implied. am amendment hereto will be in writing and signed by both the parties. ? 21. the court below has rightly brushed aside ex.c.15 by assigning reason that it ..... be of no consequence. 26, liquidated damage is worked out by the arbitrator on the basis of audited balance sheet by the appellant for the period 2004-2005, 2003-2004: and 2002-2003 and also the directorsreport of the company, though there was objection from the appellant about these documents in the absence of affidavit .....

Siddharth Kejriwal Vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1997]90CompCas496(Kar)

..... to sri raghavan, as the period for prosecuting the accused for the above offences had become barred by time even prior to the 1989 amendment act, the accused had acquired a right, and the amendment cannot revive the remedy which had become barred by time or take away the right which had accrued to the accused. 5. another ground ..... limitation on two grounds. he pointed out that section 86(3) of the act, as it stood prior to its amendment by act 29 of 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1989 amendment act'), stipulated that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the act except on a complaint filed within six months of the date on which the ..... the complaint is superfluous. even if it is possible to infer that the respondent has alleged commission of offence with regard to non-submission of returns, it is patent that the complaint in respect of such offence would be barred by time under section 468 of the criminal procedure code. sri papanna did not seek to contend that even .....

Ajit NaraIn Haksar and ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Central Exci ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2001(78)ECC326; 2000LC19(Karnataka); ILR2002KAR2175; 2002(4)KarLJ107

..... right of pre-emption under section 15(2) of the punjab pre-emption act, 1913, as amended by the punjab pre-emption act, 1960, a division bench of the high court in letters patent appeal and fully relying on the amendment made by punjab pre-emption amendment act, 1964, reversed the judgment of the learned single judge. when the ..... matter came up before the supreme court, the question that arose was whether the amendment act, 1964 could be regarded as having retrospective operation ..... . the supreme court concluded that, in that view of the matter, there was no difficulty in attributing a retroactive intention to the legislature when the amendment act of 1964 was enacted. the supreme court said that, if a statute is curative or merely declares the previous law, retroactive operation would be more .....

Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Ors. Vs. the Workmen of ITi ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1997KAR1433

..... central government rather than the parliament itself changing the wage limit, as had been earlier done in 1968, 1975 and 1984. result was that the said amending act 29 of 1989 amended section 2(9)(b) so as to exclude those persons whose wages per month exceeded such wages as may be prescribed by the central government. after ..... the division bench referred to had not dealt with the challenge to the validity of the amendment to section 2(9)(b). the supreme court concerned itself with the question as to whether the kerala high court fell into a patent error in postponing the date of operation of the notification, the validity of which notification the ..... high court had upheld. the supreme court said that the amendment of the rules being a delegated legislation, the high court could not have interfered .....

G. Shankaregowda Vs. Rathan Singh

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1992KAR2565; 1992(3)KarLJ378

..... to be deleted and transferred as sub-section (5) of section 86 by the amendment act 47 of 1966. section 86(5) as it presently stands empowers the high court to allow the 'particulars' of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified provided the amendment does not have the effect of widening the scope of the election petition by ..... examine how the decisions of the benches of the supreme court will have to be read. a full bench of our high court in the case of govindanaik v. west patent press co. concluded thus : '5........ if two decisions of the supreme court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by a larger bench while ..... in the case of f.a.sapa v. singora has taken a contrary view and that a full bench of our high court in the case of govindanaik v. west patent press co. has held that if two decisions of the supreme court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and if both such benches consists of equal number of .....

N K Developers Pvt Ltd Vs. Concord India Ltd

Court : Karnataka

..... this belated stage is not an option for which this court should either relegate the parties or refuse to appoint arbitrator under section 11(6) of the act. moreover, the amendment in law removes the rigour of those precedents.17. as far as the name of the arbitrator suggested from the panel of the arbitrators including the ..... in law. 7. it may be noticed here that all these judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent were prior to the amendment of section 11 of the act effected by act no.3 of 2016 w.e.f. 23.10.2015.8. on the other hand, mr.udaya holla, senior counsel appearing with mr.vivek ..... him is final and insert the words the high court, and no appeal, including letters patent appeal, shall lie against such order. [note : this amendment ensures that a) an affirmative judicial finding regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement; and (b) the administrative act of appointing the arbitrator are final and non-appealabe].. 10. besides the aforesaid law commission .....