Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2007)4MLJ1153
..... or of the mere use of a known process; machine or aparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs atleast one new reactant.section 3(d) as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 with effect from 01.01.2005: the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new ..... , learned counsel appearing for the various respondents.2. in this judgment, for convenience sake, we will hereinafter refer the patents act as the 'principal act'; ordinance 7/2004 introducing an amendment to section 3(d) of the act as the 'ordinance'; amending act of 2005 amending section 3(d) of the act as the 'amending act'; section 3(d) as the amended section and the act after the amendment as the 'amended act'. the challenge to the amended section is mainly on two grounds namely,(a) it is not compatible to the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)
..... relates to invention or in otherwise. as per halsbury's laws of england, the word patent is used denoting a monopoly right in respect of an invention.28. section 2(m) of the patents act, 1970 defines 'patent' means a patent for any invention granted under this act.the said definition itself was substituted by the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2085) with effect from 01.01.2005. prior to the said amendment, section 2(m) defined 'patent' as,'patent' means a patent granted under this act.29. the term 'invention' is defined under section 2(j) of patents act, 1970 as, 'invention', means a new product or process involving an inventive .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)
..... senior counsel appearing for the appellant in o.s.a. no. 283 of 2006 the said decision requires reconsideration in view of the patents (amendment) act 2005 under which, major amendments were effected to the patents act, 1970. the learned counsel further invited the attention of this court to section 48 of the patents act, which came to be substituted by act 38 of 2002 with effect from 20.05.2003 under which, sufficient protection is granted for product patent as well as process patent. therefore, according to the learned senior counsel by applying the said provision, and the judgment of this court reported in 2006 (32) prc 36 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)
..... . that was valid for a period of two years and the second plaintiff is again having another such approval for a period of two years commencing from 1.1.2003 and expiring with 31.12.2005. i have already found that neither in the patents act nor in the patents rules, there is any amended provision as to who must apply for the marketing approval in india when a patent claim is filed in india by the inventor. therefore, this court has to necessarily look into the drug and cosmetic rules alone to find out the person authorised to apply for such marketing approval .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36
..... patent application of the 4th respondent under section 25(1) of the patents act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the 'said act). in the said application it was 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 ..... -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 amendment such right of opposition at a pre-grant stage was only given to any person .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1929Mad641; (1929)57MLJ264
1. The question referred to the Full Bench is:Is the procedure to be adopted by the High Court in case of an equal division of opinion between the Judges to be governed by Clause 36 of the Letters Catent or by Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure?2. The Letters Patent were issued in 1862 and were modified in 1865 but previously a section like Section 98 had been introduced into the Civil Procedure Code of 1859 by the Amending Act of 1861. Between 1865 and 1877, it could not be suggested that the Civil Procedure Code prevailed over the Letters Patent. It was obvious that the Letters Patent prevailed over the Civil Procedure Code. In case of difference of opinion between two Judges, the procedure in the Letters Patent was the only procedure to be followed. This was accordingly held in Nundeeput Mahta v. Mr. Alexander Shaw Urquhart. (1870) 13 W.R. 209 A fresh Civil Procedure Code was passed in 1877 and another in 1882 and in these Codes Section 575 similar to Section 98 of the presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... 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, i find it just and reasonable to allow the writ petition and declare that the impugned amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires, void and unenforceable 53. in the result, this writ petition is allowed, declaring that the impugned amendment introduced to section 126 of the patents act 1970, by section 67 (a) of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005 ..... under 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 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2000(2)CTC609
ORDER1. All these writ petitions challenge the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1997). Hence, they are dealt with in a common judgment.2. For the convenience I shall refer the facts narrated by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.4157 of 1998. The petitioner Thiru Muruga Real Estate started its business in the year 1984. Vast extent of properties were purchased and layout formed and sold to public for construction of houses. For the past few years, the Real Estate Market was going down by 30 to 40 per cent and there are no immediate purchasers. The petitioner's firm was formed on 18.4.1994 as a Sister concern for the Thiru Muruga Real Estate to accept deposit from the public. Deposits were accepted both by the petitioner-firm and also by the Real Estate entity Thiru Muruga Real Estate. From 15.4.1995 deposits were received and within a short span of time, a total of 2.75 crores were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1995)IIMLJ367
ORDERSrinivasan, J. 1. Broadly stated, two contentions are mainly urged in this batch of writ petitions, one relating to the validity of some of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act No. 68 of 1986), (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and the other relating to the applicability of the Act to imparting of education and matters connected therewith. It is only in W.P. No. 6447 of 1993, a prayer is made for declaration that Sections 10(1)(b) and (c), 13(3), (4) and (5), 14(1)(c), 16(1)(b), 20(1)(b) and 27 and other provisions of the Act as unconstitutional, ultra vires and unenforceable. In all the other Writ Petitions the prayer is for either issue of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Consumer Forum from dealing with the specified complaint or for issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the orders passed by the Consumer Forum on specified complaints. 2. The petitions can be classified into three groups :- A. Writ Petitions filed by Educational Ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... and the t.o.s. may be decreed as prayed for. in support of his submissions, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following decisions: (a) 2005 (1) ctc 304 (sc) (iridium india telecom ltd. vs. motorola inc.): "2. this appeal impugns the judgment of the division bench of the high court of judicature at bombay in a letters patent appeal holding that the amended provision of order 8, rule 1 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as cpc ) would not apply to the suits on the original ..... considerations." (emphasis supplied)" (b) 2003 (1) scc 730 (jinia keotin vs. kumar sitaram manjhi): "4. we have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. the hindu marriage act underwent important changes by virtue of the marriage laws (amendment) act, 1976, which came into force with effect from 27.5.1976. under the ordinary law, a child for being treated as legitimate must be born in lawful wedlock. if the marriage itself is void on account .....
Tag this Judgment!