Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Court: supreme court of india Page 1 of about 309 results (0.114 seconds)

J. Mitra and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Controller of Patents and Desig. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009(1)AWC366(SC); LC2008(3)31; 2008(38)PTC6(SC); 2008(11)SCALE524; (2008)10SCC368

..... 293/06 was filed in the high court, chapter xix of the parent act as amended vide patents (amendment) act, 1999 continued to be in operation notwithstanding the enactment of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the patents (amendment) act, 2005 as the amended sections 116 and 117a were brought into force only vide notification dated 2.4 ..... amendments to sections 116 and 117a suggested by section 47 of the patents (amendment) act, 2002, on 4.4.2005 the legislature enacted the patents (amendment) act, 2005. even here, not all provisions were simultaneously brought into force. only certain sections of the patents (amendment) act, 2005 were brought into force.13. vide section 23 of the patents (amendment) act, 2005, ..... 293/06 in the high court under section 116, as it stood on 19.10.06 under the patents (amendment) act, 1999. on that date, the amended section 117a, suggested by patents (amendment) act, 2005, was not brought into force. on 19.10.06 the old law prevailed under which an appeal lay .....

Natco Pharma Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... and without making our order a precedent for future cases, we called for a panel/list of controllers duly qualified under section 116 of the patents act, as amended by the patents (amendment) act, 2006.6. from that list submitted to us, we have opted for the name of dr. p.c. chakraborti, deputy controller of ..... patents & designs, who holds post- graduate degree of m.sc. (chemistry) as well as ph.d.7. we, accordingly, direct that all preliminaries will be completed ..... account of absence of technical member in the intellectual property appellant board (ipab) constituted under the provisions of section 116 of the patents act, 1970. on 2nd april, 2007, central government appointed s. chandrasekaran as technical member (patent) of ipab vide notification of even date. on 3rd april, 2007, notification was issued notifying 2nd april, 2007 as the .....

Jamshed N. Guzdar Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC862; 2005(3)BomCR139; JT2005(1)SC370; 2005(2)MhLj392; 2005(1)MPHT497; 2005MPLJ181(SC); (2005)2SCC591; 2005(2)LC812(SC)

..... any special reason, and at any stage remove for trial by itself any suit or proceeding from the city court.'25. by section 3 of letters patent (amendment) act, 1948, clause 12 of the letters patent was amended. the amended portion reads:-'.......the high court shall not have such original jurisdiction in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the small causes court at bombay or the ..... on 10th may, 1948 with a view to 'establishing an additional civil court for greater bombay'. the said act came into force on 16th august, 1948. at about same time the bombay legislature also passed the letters patent (amendment) act, 1948 (act no. 41 of 1948) amending clause 12 to exclude the original jurisdiction of the high court as regards cases which fall within the jurisdiction .....

Glaxo Smith Kline Plc and ors. Vs. Controller of Patents and Designs a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2009AIRSCW376; AIR2009SC1147; 2008(4)AWC3839(SC); 2008BusLR879(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN197; LC2008(3)131; (2009)2MLJ548(SC); 2008(38)PTC1(SC); 2008(12)SCALE284; 2008(6)LHSC4364.

..... open. pursuant to the order of the learned single jude, dated 16th december, 2004, the controller of patent again rejected the application filed by the writ petitioners on december 28, 2004. on january 1, 2005 the patent (amendment act), 2005 came into operation by which various amendments to the act were made and the chapter iv-a which provided the mode of adjudication of the claim of emr ..... was totally deleted. on june 9, 2005 the writ petitioners filed another writ application thereby challenging the order dated 28th december .....

Novartis Ag and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... an international agreement entered into by the government of india. following the international agreement, the patents act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the parent act (patents act, 1970). between january 1, 1995 and january 1, 2005, the patents act, 1970, underwent wide ranging changes, but if we are asked to identify the single ..... was obliged to deal with the matter and pass the act, replacing ordinance no. 7 of 2004 and amending the patents act, 1970, is best stated in the statement of objects and reasons for the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005). in paragraph 5 of the statement of objects and reasons it is stated as under:amendment act 15 of 2005 - statement of objects and reasons.-5. the time-frame for .....

Novartis Ag Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... an international agreement entered into by the government of india. following the international agreement, the patents act, 1970, was subjected to large scale changes in three stages; and finally, by the patents (amendment) act, 2005, section 5 was altogether deleted from the parent act (patents act, 1970). between january 1, 1995 and january 1, 2005, the patents act, 1970, underwent wide ranging changes, but if we are asked to identify the single ..... was obliged to deal with the matter and pass the act, replacing ordinance no.7 of 2004 and amending the patents act, 1970, is best stated in the statement of objects and reasons for the patents (amendment) act, 2005 (act 15 of 2005). in paragraph 5 of the statement of objects and reasons it is stated as under: amendment act 15 of 2005 statement of objects and reasons. 5. the time-frame for .....

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. State Of Goa

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... insofar as domestic awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-a), 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 ..... to be generating the rated output without any degradation. similarly, bggts had carried out the hot gas path inspection of gt during annual inspection in september 2005. all operating parameters were checked and the turbine was found to be generating its rated output without any degradation. 6053. the respondent submitted that the certificate ..... degradation of the plant even thereafter. therefore, the contractual stipulation regards downrating, which was never amended or deleted by any subsequent agreements, could not have been ignored or bypassed based on the certificate dated 8th november 2005 or the minutes of the meeting dated 5th april 2007.125. the impugned award to the .....

Aphali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC2227

..... of ayurvedic medicinal preparations, those being excluded from the definition of drug. the definition of patent and proprietary medicines till then did not apply to ayurvedic preparations. this position continued indeed till the amendment of drugs act by the drugs and cosmetics (amendment) act, 1964. several amendments were effected by that amendment act of 1964. section 33a and chapter iva were inserted. section 33a said that chapter iv ..... gallon on the strength of london proof spirit. alcohol and self-generated alcohol were treated differently.17. the schedule was amended by the amending act no. 19 of 1961 and the amended schedule stood as follows :item no.descriptionof dutiable goodsrate ofduly1.medicinalpreparations, being patent or proprietary medicines,containing alcohol and which are not capable of being consumed as ordinaryalcoholic beverages.ten percent ad valorem .....

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1970SC564; [1970]40CompCas325(SC); (1970)1SCC248; [1970]3SCR530

..... i.e. compulsory acquisition of property: see subodh gopal's case : [1954]1scr587 and dwarkadas shriniwas's case : [1954]1scr674 . but since the amendment by the constitution (fourth amendment) act it has been held that clauses (1) & (2) dealt with different subject-matters. in kavalppara kottarathil kochuni's case : [1960]3scr887 , subba ..... not depend on another's courtesy: it includes ownership, estates and interests in corporeal things, and also rights such as trade-marks, copyrights, patents and even rights in personal capable of transfer or transmission, such as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a thing considered as having ..... 'banking'; entry 46 'bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes and other like instruments; entry 47 'insurance'; entry 48 'stock exchanges and future markets'; entry 49 'patents, inventions and designs'. there are several entries relating to activities commercial as well as non-commercial in list ii--entry 21 'fisheries'. entry 24 'industries . . . .....

Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... arbitration, has become outdated. the law commission of india, several representative bodies of trade and industry and experts in the field of arbitration have proposed amendments to this act to make it more responsive to contemporary requirements. it is also recognised that our economic reforms may not become fully effective if the law dealing with ..... 53. having come to this conclusion, it would appear that the decisions rendered by the court on the interplay between section 39 of the 1940 act and the letters patent jurisdiction of the high court shall have no application for deciding the question in hand. but that would be only a superficial view and the ..... courts on the point whether the finality attached to orders passed under section 588 (corresponding to section 104 of the present code) precluded any further appeals, including a letters patent appeal. the question, then, came up before the privy council in the case of hurrish chunder chowdry v. kali sundari debia, ilr (1882) 9 cal. 482 .....