Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2004Ker111; 2004(1)KLT55
..... constitution shall be restored. section 10 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1999 abolished appeals against judgments of a single judge of the high court in all cases'.13. section 100a begins with the words 'notwithstanding anything contained' in any letters patent for any high court or in any instrument having the force of law ..... section 10 of the 38 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1999 (46 of 1999), which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. it reads as follows :-'100a. 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 ..... procedure by section 38 of the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1976 (104 of 1976), which came into force with effect from 1.2.1977. the section inserted read as follows:-'100a. no further appeal in certain cases. notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in any other instrument having .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT52(HC)
..... 39(2) against a decision given by a learned single judge under section 39(1). in respect of the jurisdiction under letters patent the court observed that since arbitration act was a consolidating and amending act relating to arbitration it must be construed without any assumption that it was not intended to alter the law relating to appeals. the ..... subject to the legislative power of the governor-general in council and also of the govern or-fn-council under the government of india act, 1915, and may in all respects be amended or altered in exercise of legislative authority. under section 39(1), an appeal lies from the orders specified in that sub-section and from ..... . kanta & ors. reported in : [1982]1scr187 to contend that even though the appeal may not be maintainable under section 39 of the arbitration act, clause 15 of the letters patent permits the appellant to maintain such an appeal. we do not agree with his contention because what we clearly find from a careful reading of this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1977WLN357
..... other statutes including the letters patent. in our view, the aforesaid dictum of shah j., is applicable o the provisions of the act as well, which was connected to amend & codify the law relating to the marriages among the hindus. moreover, it will be fair to assume that by the amendments introduced in the act by the provisions of the amending act no. 68 of 1976, the ..... expressed the view that section 39 of the arbitration act restricted the right of appeal, which was otherwise available under the letters patent against the order passed by a single judge of a high court. it was pointed out by shah j. in the aforesaid case, that the arbitration act was a consolidation and amending act and as it was substantially a code relating to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1973All596
..... otherwise be within the exclusive competence of another legislature. the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment) ordinance, 1972 and the uttar pradesh high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment), act, 1972 are technically speaking on a matter which is within the exclusive competence of the parliament in ..... made on points raised on behalf of the appellants which apply equally to letters patent appeals governed by the principal act, and to such appeals governed by the amending ordinance and the amending act. it is contended that letters patent appeal is not in reality an appeal; it is only rehearing by way ..... 133 of the constitution (election commission, india v. venkata rao : [1953]4scr1144 ).106. letters patent appeals (special appeals) abolished under the amending ordinance and the amending act differ from such appeals abolished under the principal act in that they do not arise directly from the proceedings under the tenancy laws or the u. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)
..... must be considered in that background.18. it is submitted that raising the aforesaid concerns, defendant no. 2 has challenged the constitutional validity of the patents (amendment) act, 1999 in the hon'ble high court of delhi by way of writ proceedings bearing writ petition nos. 9081-82/2003 filed on december 18, ..... same evidentiary material which establishes the identical nature of the impugned drugs of all the defendants, regardless of jurisdiction.4. until the amendments made by the patents (amendment) act, 1999, only a process patent was granted for a medicine or a drug. old section 5 was renumbered as section 5(1) and sub -clause (2 ..... though its product patent application is pending and may be rejected after 1st january 2005 whenever examined. even distribution through channels of charity is hit by the anti-competitive and monopolistic effects of the emr grant. it is submitted that the trips contemplates provisions for 'exclusive marketing rights, whereas the amendment act, 1999 travels .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ686; 2007(4)KCCRSN260; 2007(3)AIRKarR40.
..... at the chennai office.2. the affidavit, inter alia; discloses the significant changes that have been brought about in the patents act, 1970 by the amending act of 2005; that the present procedure for processing the applications is now streamlined comparable to similar processing procedures undertaken elsewhere in other developed ..... places on record an affidavit dated 19-4-2005, sworn to by sri mannargudy sundararaman venkataraman, assistant controller of patents and designs, patent office, chennai2. the affidavit inter alia, points out that sweeping changes have been brought about by the amendment act of 2005 to the parent patent act of 1970 and some major changes such as ..... omission of section 5 of the principal act, having taken place and changed statutory position substantially alters the grounds on which the persons .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36
..... contended by the petitioners that the indian patents (amendment) act, 2005 was passed to make the said act compliant with the obligations under trips. trips, signed in 1995, required india to effect a product patent regime after ten years. from 1995, it became clear that india would adopt a product patent regime by 2005. prior to the patents (amendment) act, 2005 the said act only granted patents for processes but not for products. therefore ..... of the pre-grant and post-grant procedure vide sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the said act has been brought about by the patent amendment act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said amendment'). a perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of the said amended act would clarify the legislative intent of giving right of objection to 'any person', whereas prior to the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2010(112)BomLR269; LC2010(1)13
..... ) 10 scc 368. in that case, however, the problem considered was about the confusion arising on account of the postponement of in-part commencement of the patents (amendment) act, 2005, in particular with regard to the remedy of appeal against an order rejecting the pre-grant opposition. indeed, the court considered the legislative change brought about by ..... 2007) 4 madras law journal 1153. in the said case while examining the question regarding the validity of the amendment act which amended section 3(d) of the act, the court proceeded to examine the purport of the amended provision i.e., section 3(d). it is held that from the language of section 3(d) when ..... no. 1 had submitted application in april 2004; whereas section 3(d) was amended and came into effect subsequently on 1/1/2005. moreover, even before the petitioner filed representation by way of opposition under section 25(1) of the act during the examination proceedings in respect of the application filed by the respondent no. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom435; 1992(3)BomCR494; (1992)94BOMLR984
..... 1948. by s. 3 of that act, clause 12 of the letters patent was amended by adding the following words; 'the high court shall not have ..... act received the assent of the governor general about the same time. it came into force on august 10, 1948 by notification issued by the provincial government and published in the official gazette. simultaneously with the passing of the above act, the bombay legislature also enacted act no. xli of 1948 called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act ..... the petitioner before the high court indu bhushan challenged constitutionality and scope and ambit of calcutta city civil court act (no. 23/63) and amendment to the said act by the city civil court (amendment) act, 1969, increasing the pecuniary juris-diction of the city civil court. a content ion that was raised .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1980Bom123
..... the legislature of the province of bombay enacted the said bombay high court letters patents (amendment) act, 1948 (bombay act xli of 1948), making the amendment set out earlier to clause 12 of the letters patent. at the same time the legislature took the opportunity by this amendment to abolish the concurrent jurisdiction which this high court possessed in suits of which ..... in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed one hundred rupees.'by the bombay high court letters patents amendment act, 1948 (bombay act xli of 1948), the said clause 12 was amended with respect to the aforesaid exception to the high court's power to entertain and try suits. after such ..... with any claim or question provided for by the said section 28. it was because at the date when the bombay rent act was enacted, clause 12 of the letters patent had not been amended, and the only exception to the high court's jurisdiction with respect to suits triable by the court of small cause at .....
Tag this Judgment!