Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 4 omission of section 5 Page 100 of about 128,462 results (0.608 seconds)

Puneet Kaushik and anr Vs. Union of India and ors

Court : Delhi

..... , there would be no need to make a separate application in india and the international application would serve the requisite purpose. the aforesaid provision in the patents act, 1970 was necessitated on account of the provisions contained in pct which stipulate that an international application would be termed as an application made in all the ..... to declare that a pct application filed in india at the indian receiving office (ro/in) would not require a prior permission under section 39 of the patents act, 1970; and issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction of a similar nature directing the respondent authorities to declare the indian ..... in article 18(2) of pct, is to be transmitted to the applicant as well as the international bureau. article 19 of pct permits the applicant to amend his claims before the international bureau after receipt of the international search report. as provided in article 22, the international application along with international search report is .....

The Special Deputy Collecotr,visakhapat Vs. Palla Apparao (Died) and O ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... passed by the trial court, through which, some of the benefits under the amended act were extended to the respondents. however, the market value fixed by the trial court was confirmed. not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the appellant has filed this letters patent appeal. sr.p. rajasekhar, learned standing counsel for the appellant, submits that ..... since the said judgment was found to be not a good law in sunder v. union of india2, his clients are entitled to all the benefits under the amended act. it was way back in the year 1970, that the land of the contesting respondents was acquired. the award was passed nine years thereafter. the land acquisition ..... enhanced the market value to rs.10.45 paise, per square yard. the benefits under section 23(1-a) of the act and other relevant provisions introduced to the land acquisition amendment act 68 of 1984 (for short 'act 68 of 1984').were also extended. in its capacity as beneficiary of the acquired land, the appellant filed a.s.no .....

Ultratech Cement Limited and Another Vs. Shree Balaji Cement Industrie ...

Court : Mumbai

..... cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court and the plaintiffs ought not to be granted leave under clause xiv of the letters patent. 14. section 134 (2) of the act enables the registered proprietor of a trademark to institute a suit for infringement in a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction at the ..... 1064310644 of 2010. the defendants have also relied on the judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in the case of kusumingots and alloys ltd. vs. union of india (2005 (118) ecr 151 (sc)to contend that even if a small part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular high court, the ..... originally filed, was defective and not maintainable and this alleged vested right was sought to be taken away by the amendment. in this connection, the defendant has relied upon sections 28 (3), 29 (2) and 30 (2) (e) of the act to contend that the suit for infringement cannot lie and is barred by law. the plaintiff, in response to .....

Citicorp Business & Financial Services Pvt Ltd vs.citi Group Inc & Anr

Court : Delhi

..... enumerated under order xliii of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this act and section 37 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (26 of 1996). (2) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or letters patent of a high court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a ..... letters patent of a high court or a provision such as section 10 of the delhi high court act, 1966 but, in the context of the code of civil procedure inasmuch as (1) the commercial division and the commercial court are enjoined by section 16 to follow the provisions of the cpc, fao(os)no.42/2018 page 8 of 11 as amended ..... against an order of a commercial division of the high court before the commercial appellate division of that high court is one under section 13(1) of the said act or under a letters patent of a high court or under any other law for the time being in force, including a provision such as section 10 of the delhi high court .....

Nabinagar Power Generating Company Limited vs.amr India Limited (Amril ...

Court : Delhi

..... as domestic awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2a), added by the amendment act, 2015, to section 34. here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount ..... would remain, for if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes section 31(3) of the 1996 act that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.41. the change made the amendment act really follows what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in associate builders (supra), in section 28(3) by ..... 2 2 (supra). understood in paragraphs 36 to 39 of associate builders to section 34(2)(b)(ii)and to section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the amendment act only so that western geco (supra), as understood in associate builders (supra), and paragraphs 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with. explanation 38. insofar .....

Mecamidi s.a vs.flovel Mg Holdings Private Limited & Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... section 38. insofar as domestic awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2a), added by the amendment act, 2015, to section 34. here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not ..... gives no reasons for an award and contravenes section 31(3) of the 1996 act, that omp(comm.) no.228/2017 page 14 would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.41. the change made in section 28(3) by the amendment act really follows what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in associate builders ..... against basic notions of justice or morality as understood in paragraphs 36 to 39 of associate builders (supra). explanation 2 to section 34(2)(b)(ii)and explanation by the amendment act only so that western geco (supra), as understood in associate builders (supra), and paragraphs 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with. 48(2)(b)(ii .....

Naturelle Health Products Pvt. Vs. Collr. of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in : (1996)(81)ELT578TriDel

..... , c.j., c.a. vaidialingam and a.n. grover, jj, has made the following observations: there can be no difficulty now after the amendments made by act xiii of 1964 in the matter of medicines and substances exclusively used or prepared for use in accordance with the ayurvedic or unani system of medicine provided ..... the show cause notice calls upon them to explain as to why their product should not be classified under sub-heading 3003.10 of central excise tariff act as 'patent and proprietary medicaments' other than those medicaments which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, sid-dha, homoeopathic or biochemic drugs attracting 15% adv. rate of duty. ..... of the ingredients in the product were synthetic formulations. the goods cannot, therefore, be considered to be ayurvedic medicines.sub-heading 3003.30 would not cover patent or proprietary ayurvedic medicaments. heading 3003.10 excludes only those ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homeopathic or bio-chemic medicaments which are exclusively so.since the goods .....

B.i.C. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Reported in : (1996)59ITD210(All.)

..... appear somewhat strange that an order 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 operation of the amendment act...." 17. we find that the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. we ..... under s. 143(1)(a) is an "order".11. processing under s. 143(1)(a) of the act was introduced by the direct tax laws (amendment) act, 1987, w.e.f. 1st april, 1989. prior to that s. 143(1)(a) of the act authorised the ao in certain circumstances to "make an assessment of the total income or loss". however, w.e ..... debts/advances was only a provision and not a bad debt written off. it was, therefore, not admissible even in terms of the amended s. 36(1)(vii) of the act and this was also a case of patent mistake of law. for these reasons, the assessee's appeal was dismissed. the assessee is now in appeal before us.11. the learned .....

Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2000)75ITD394(Mum.)

..... does not fall within the ambit of s. 80-o as providing films on beta tapes for telecasting would not fall within the definition of patent, invention, design or registered trade mark.however, before the amendment in 1997, s. 80-o provided a deduction in respect of various other items. the assessee would be entitled to deduction if the ..... have been omitted. the assessment year involved in the present appeal is 1996-97.therefore, we have to deal with the section as it existed before its amendment by the finance act of 1977 (supra).32. a perusal of the section quoted above reveals that for getting a deduction under s. 80-o the assessee must have derived income ..... brought into india, in computing the total income of the assessee.31. this section had been amended by the finance act of 1977 (supra) and w.e.f. 1st april, 1998, the deduction is permissible in respect of the use outside india of any patent, invention, design or registered trade mark only. the words model, secret formula or process or .....

Patterson Vs. Winn

Court : US Supreme Court

..... officers of the state, by which the governor is allowed six dollars for signing a grant of land exceeding one thousand acres. so also in the act to revise and amend the above act, passed 18 december, 1792, dig. 173, the governor is allowed, on all grants above one thousand acres at and after the rate of two ..... irregularities in the conduct of those who are appointed by the government to supervise the progressive course of a title from its commencement to its consummation in a patent. but in order to guard against the conclusion that this doctrine would lead to, closing the door against all inquiry into any matter whatever beyond the grant ..... appointed to superintend the business, and rules are framed prescribing their duty. these rules are in general directory, and when all the proceedings are completed by a patent issued by the authority of the state, a compliance with these rules is presupposed. that every prerequisite has been performed is an inference properly deducible and which every .....