Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 5 Court: mumbai Page 5 of about 10,301 results (0.418 seconds)

Bimal Bhatt Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

..... record. in the case of ito v. itat their lordships of patna high court have also expressed a similar observation after holding that section 254(2) of the act empowers the tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) with a view to rectifying a mistake from record. however, section 254(2) does not authorize the tribunal to ..... cit v. gokul chand agarwal (1993) 202 itr 142 (cal) their lordships of calcutta high court have also held that section 254(2) to the income tax act, 1961 empowers the tribunal to amend its order passed under section 254(1) to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either suo motu or on an application. if in its order there is ..... four years of the date of an order to amend any order passed by it under section 254(1) of the act with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record either suo motu or on an application made. what can be rectified under this section is a mistake which is apparent and patent. the mistake has to be such for which .....

Rajaram Dadu and ors. Vs. the State and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1952CriLJ1

..... a tribunal arrived at before these provisions came into force. we, therefore, decline leave to the applicants to amend their petition.17. now, as to the applicability of clause 11 of the letters patent. this clause deals with appeals only, hereunder the high court is empowered to hear appeals (1) from decisions ..... legislature and not by the provincial government. the question thus raised is one of great constitutional importance because under the government of india act, 1086, the criminal procedure code could only be amended in particular way by the provincial legislature. it is open to considerable doubt whether such power could be delegated to the provincial ..... procedure, clause 11 of the letters patent of the high court and section 107, government of india act, 1915, read with section 223. government of india act, 1935. when this application came up for hearing before hidayatullah, j. an application was made to the court praying for the amendment of the original application by including .....

iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc. and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2004(2)BomCR530; 2004(1)MhLj532

..... upon the above section the learned solicitor general contended that the rules framed by the high court which are inconsistent with the provisions of the civil procedure code as amended by the amending act shall stand repealed. in support of this proposition he placed reliance on ganpat giri v. iind additional district judge, balia, : [1986]1scr15 and ..... court power to frame rules to regulate the procedure on its original civil side with only this limitation that they must not be inconsistent with the letters patent, or other law, establishing the high court in question. it must, therefore, follow that they could be inconsistent with everything else, including even the ..... -- notwithstanding anything in this code, any high court, not being the court of a judicial commissioner, may make such rules not inconsistent with the letters patent or order or other law establishing it, to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction as it shall think fit, and nothing .....

Rajeshkumar Porwal Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1992)40ITD142(Mum.)

..... connivance of owners thereof, that is, the grandsons of kesharimal porwal. [emphasis supplied]. while dealing with the effect of the proviso to section 71 of the gold (control) amendment act, 1971, the supreme court observed as follows : the proviso lays down the circumstances under which any gold which is liable to confiscation will not be confiscated. confiscation deprives the ..... the requirement of the proviso are met the gold could not be ordered to be confiscated.8.3 against this order, the collector of central excise filed a letters patent appeal no. 28 of 1982 before the division bench of the delhi high court. the division bench took note of the findings of the single judge that before ..... petition by single judge of the delhi high court and copy of the judgment dated 10-12-1981 by the division bench of the delhi high court in letters patent appeal no. 28/82 against the above-referred judgment of single judge have been filed. we find that-the cit(a) has only referred to these various .....

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1990LC48(Bombay); 1979(4)ELT286(Bom)

..... of that section meaningless, and nugatory.* * * * 12. it is in the context of explanation i both as inserted by the amending act 19 of 1961 with effect from june 1, 1961 and as substituted by amending act 20 of 1962 with effect from april 23, 1962 that the impugned orders of the authorities are required to be looked at. we have ..... to the suit.* * * * 21. so far as the last point urged before us, namely, that the plaintiffs' medicinal preparation codifying was during the period in question patent or proprietary medicine, we have already dealt with this aspect of the case while dealing with the question of maintainability of the suit, and we have already held that it ..... in the said schedule, because it having been manufactured from a formula which was standard formula found in the british pharmacopoeia, 1958 edition, it was not a patent or proprietary medicine. an order based on a statutory provision which had no existence during the relevant time cannot be said to be an order passed under the .....

Maharashtra Power Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dabhol Power Co. an ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR2004Bom38; (2004)1BOMLR833; [2003]117CompCas506(Bom)

..... be preferred to any literal, pedantic, legalistic or technically correct alternative. on this footing we are prepared to interpret section 13 of the amendment act and give effect to section 4 of that act. how do we work it out we do it by directing the plaintiffs in the two cases to file fresh pleadings setting out their ..... in the case of b. banerjee v. smt. anita pan : [1975]2scr774 . in that case, the court was required to consider whether the amendment in the west bengal premises tenancy act, 1956, made in the year 1969, retrospectively prohibiting the new landlord who had purchased the premises, from filing of a suit on the ground that the ..... ., meeting of the directors held on june 4, 2002, and the decisions taken thereat. since the act was a single act, mr. sibal submitted, the petition could not have been filed under section 397 of the act. the petition was subsequently amended and further actions, viz., the decisions taken at the general meeting on september 9, 2002, and further .....

Janu Chandra Waghmare and ors. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1978Bom119; (1977)79BOMLR499

..... aside by the supreme court on 1-11-1976 and the case was remitted to the high court 'to hear the parties on maharashtra private forests (acquisition) (amendment) act, act 72/75, and after hearing the rival contentions of the parties the high court will pronounce its judgment'. when the matter came up for hearing before the division ..... the learned judge to take into consideration the amendments introduced by the amending act 72 of 1975 while answering questions referred to him. the learned judge declined to do so holding that such a course was not permissible on. a reference made to him under clause 36 of the letters patent. out of four points that were referred to ..... third judge for decision under clause 36 of the letters patent.5. while the matter was pending he-fore deshmukh j. as the third judge, ordinance 13 of 1975 was replaced by maharashtra act 72 of 1975 under which the parent act 29 of 1975 was further extensively amended with effect from the date of its original commencement (30 .....

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Smt. Krishna Kapoor L/J of Late Ran ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : [2009]180TAXMAN190(Bom)

..... in the net wealth of the assessee-(v) the rights under any patent or copyright belonging to the assessee:provided that they are not held by him as assets of a business, profession or vocation and no income or benefit accrues to him therefrom;4. the taxation laws (amendment) act, 1975 came into force from 1.4.1976. by virtue of section ..... 83, proviso to clause (v) was substituted by the following proviso.provided that they are held by him in his own right as the inventor or author of such patent or copyright, as the case may be, and ..... a consideration of para-2 of the judgment we find that the tribunal applied the section as it stood, before it was amended. the correct position ought to have been to apply the section as amended by the taxation laws (amendment) act, 1975. once we hold that holder of the copyright was the late raj kapoor, section 5(v) of the wealth tax .....

Mafatlal Apparel Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (1998)65ITD234(Mum.)

..... which was good and valid when it was made should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the amendment act. but such a result is necessarily involved in the legal fiction about the retrospective operation of the amendment act. tax payable, if any, by the assessee is to be increased under ..... adjustment on account of ccs.the assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed by the cit(a) as in his opinion the provisions of the retrospective amendment by finance act of 1990 were clear to make ccs taxable as revenue income.6. we have heard the parties and considered their rival submissions. in our opinion, ..... incorrect in view of the decision of the special bench in the case of gedore tools (india) (p) ltd. (supra). it became incorrect when finance act 1990, introduced retrospective amendment making cash compensatory support taxable. therefore, the court held : "an assessee cannot be imputed with clairvoyance. when the return was filed, the assessee could .....

Prakash Manikchand Mutha Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj484

..... in 1996. the finding of respondent no. 3 that it fell under category iii after 26-9-2000 is, thus, patently erroneous. 19-20. the preamble to the amendment act of 1969 in clause 12 statedthus :'in the co-operative movement in the state, a group of persons have beenholding the key positions in ..... the aggregate period of ten years in office, anyperiod for which the person concerned may have been such officer,before the commencement of the maharashtra co-operativesocieties (second amendment) act, 1969, shall be ignored;(b) if any person resigns his office as a designated officer at any timewithin twelve months of the date on which the aggregate ..... and a society not engaged in commercial activities.) 13. the categorization under sub-section (2) suffered yet anotheramendment in 1996 by maharashtra co-operative societies (amendment) act,1995 and the present amended provisions of sub-section (2) read as under:(2) 'no person shall, at the same time be or continue to be, a designatedofficer of more .....