Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 24 omission of section 27 Page 7 of about 62,934 results (0.689 seconds)

Dental College and Hospital of the Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society and ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... teaching faculty as per norms laid down by the council and the final batch of students take the final year examinations. the relevant provisions of dentists (amendment) act, 1993, relevant regulations and events 8. the petitioner, pursuant to the due permission from the competent authority, started under graduation course of bachelor of ..... . bank ltd., branch jaistambh chowk, amravati, maharashtra, and to convey the formal permission of the central government under section 10a (4) of the dentists (amendment) act, 1993 to vidarbha youth welfare society's dental college and hospital, amravati, maharashtra, for starting of mds course in the specialities of (i) picsthodontics and ..... renewal permission from the central government. 3. admissions made in violation of the above stipulations will attract the provisions of section 10b of the dentists (amendment) act, 1993. as a result, second batch also got admitted and the students started prosecuting their studies in m.d.s. course. 10. the dci .....

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S. Surya Prakash Reddy and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530

..... did not want an internal appeal within the high court, even as regards such matters. therefore, it amended section 100a, through c.p.c. amendment act of 2002 (act 22 of 2002), in such a manner, that no letters patent appeal shall lie from a judgment and decree rendered by a single judge, whether such judgment was in respect ..... passed in appeal under this section.10. section 100a was, for the first time, inserted in the code by amendment act no. 104 of 1976. the same was as under:notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for ..... supreme court held that u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1962 and u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) act 33 of 1972 were constitutional.40. the ratio of these decisions is that the competent legislature can amend and even abolish the letters patent. undisputedly, section 100a of the code is a piece of .....

Avtar NaraIn Behal Vs. Subhash Chander Behal

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 154(2008)DLT140

..... the law at the relevant time. at the relevant time neither section 100-a nor section 104(2) barred a letters patent appeal. the words used in section 100-a are not by way of abundant caution. by the amendment acts of 1976 and 2002 a specific exclusion is provided as the legislature knew that in the absence of such words a letters ..... arose as to maintainability of the letters patent appeal in view of section 100a of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (cpc) the learned judges of the division bench were of the view that the reasons given by another division bench of this court in satish chander sabharwal and anr. v. state and ors. : 122(2005)dlt170 on the basis of which .....

Ramesh Chandra Das Vs. Kishore Chandra Das and ors.

Court : Orissa

Reported in : AIR2007Ori146

..... 629 of the report).recently also the supreme court in kamala devi v. khushal kanwar reported in : air2007sc663 , held that only a letters patent appeal filed prior to coming into force of the 2002 amendment act would be maintainable. (see para 20 at page 667 of the report).28. in the instant case, these appeals have been filed much ..... lie from the judgment and decree of such single judge.section 100a was first introduced by amendment by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976. section 97 of that amending act contained the provisions for repeal and savings. section 97(2)(n) of the amending act which deals with section 100a is in following terms:(n) section 100a, as inserted in ..... of this court is not maintainable inasmuch as the order impugned before the learned single judge of this court in fao was passed in 2005 and section 100a was introduced by way of amendment on 1-7-2002.14. though in this case also the orders impugned before the learned single judge were passed in 2006, and .....

Rajalakshmi Associates Vs. Sree Meenakshi Papers

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2003(2)KLT225

..... 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 decision rendered by the full ..... against the judgment of learned single judge of this court. maintainability of the appeals has been questioned in view of section 100-a introduced by the code of civil procedure (amendment} act 2002 with effect from 1.7.2002. section 100-aof the code of civil procedure is extracted below for easy reference.'100-a. no further appeal in certain cases. ..... clause 15 of the letters patent 1865 was also examined. full bench of the madhya pradesh high court as well as the division bench of andhra pradesh high court have taken the view, after elaborate consideration of the law on the point, that in view of section 100-a of the c.p.c. (amendment) act 2002 appeals filed after 1. .....

Vijay Agarwal and Others Vs. Harinarayan G. Bajaj and Others

Court : Mumbai

..... or depending on such proceeding. order 6 rule 17 as amended by the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 with effect from 1 july 2002 reads as follows: 17. amendment of pleadings.- the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may ..... and second respondents that : (i) the order of the learned single judge rejecting the application for amendment does not constitute a judgment under clause 15 of the letters patent since going by the case of the appellants, the proposed amendment only sought to adduce additional particulars in respect of pleas already contained in the written statement. hence, ..... the plaintiff at the trial. such an order would not amount to a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. on the other hand, an order granting leave to amend the plaint by introducing a new cause of action which completely alters the nature of the suit and takes away the vested right .....

F. Hoffmann-la Roche Ltd. and anr. Vs. Cipla Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 148(2008)DLT598; LC2008(2)35; 2008(37)PTC71(Del)

..... . reliance in this regard is placed by the defendant on an expert's affidavit.44. learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the amendments to the act brought into force in 2005, for the first time, ushered a regime whereby product patent is permissible in respect of pharmaceuticals and drugs. parliament consciously enacted and added, to the pre-existing requirements of every claim, the ..... could possibly have been argued that the essence of patentability, in pharmaceuticals and chemicals, is inventive ingenuity, novelty and existence of industrial application or economic significance of the new product or process. however, the background of the amendments and the two stage change (2002 and 2005) brought about to the act cannot be overlooked. a sound canon of statutory interpretation is that all provisions .....

John George Vs. Stewards Association in India

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2007Ker57; 2006(4)KLT405

..... . section 100-a mentioned above was substituted by section 10 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1999, which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. it reads thus:100-a. no further appeal in certain cases.- notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in any instrument having the force of law or in any ..... in the code of civil procedure by section 38 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976 which came into force with effect from 1.2.1977. the same 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 having the force of law or .....

Sp.Chockalingam Vs. Controller of Patents

Court : Chennai

..... article 226 of the constitution of india, seeking for issuance of a writ of declaration, declaring that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. for petitioner : mr.sp.chockalingam, party-in-person for ..... the constitution of india, seeking an order in the nature of writ of declaration, to declare the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patent act, 1970 by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.2. the petitioner, who appeared party-in-person ..... , as unconstitutional. however, the relief sought for in the writ petition is to declare that the amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act, 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.52. hence, to meet the ends of justice, .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Cancer Patients Aid Association

Court : Trademark

..... applicant fails to prove enhanced efficacy of the isomer over the known substance.hence i conclude that the subject matter of this application is not patentable under section 3(d) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005.14. the opponent said this appication was filed in india on my 17, 1998 as a convention application claiming swiss priority date of july 18 ..... /1998.2. a representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 was filed by m/s. cancer patients aid association., india, on september 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under rule 55 of the patents rules, 2003 as amended by patents (amendment) rules, 2005.3. the applicant through their agents m/s. remfry & sagar, new delhi filed reply .....