Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Court: supreme court of india Page 3 of about 309 results (0.121 seconds)

Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1981SC1786; 1981(3)SCALE1169; (1981)4SCC8; [1982]1SCR187

..... deals with appeals from appellate decree and section 100a which has been introduced into the code w.e.f. 1.2.1977 by the amending act, 104 of 1976 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in letters patent for any high court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force ..... the right of appeal in certain cases, even if such right had been conferred by letters patent or any other law.155. this right of appeal under clause 15 of the ..... of a learned single judge on the original side under clause 15 of the letters patent is a right conferred by any other law in force. it may be pertinent to point out in this connection that by incorporating section 100a in the code (by the amending act 104 of 1976, section 38), the legislature has thought it fit to interfere with .....

Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs. Biotor Industries Ltd. and a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... merits of the case. considerable reliance was placed upon the division bench judgment in letters patent appeal no.139 of 2006 by the counsel for the respondent- company, contending that the amendment act has not brought any change to section 28 of the act and further submitted that the revisional authority has rightly held that the apmc has no legal ..... therefore, it is not an agricultural produce and not liable to levy of market fee.7. being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 22.12.2005, the respondent- company filed letters patent appeal no.139 of 2006 on 18.1.2006 before the division bench of the gujarat high court challenging the findings of learned single judge ..... the learned single judge of the high court of gujarat by filing a petition under article 226 of the constitution i.e. special civil application no.13606 of 2005.12. the learned single judge after giving opportunity to the respondent- company and hearing both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties has held that .....

Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd Vs. National Highways A ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.31. given the fact that the amended act will now apply, and that the patent illegality ground for setting aside arbitral awards in international commercial arbitrations will not apply, it is necessary to 43 advert to the grounds ..... proper view of its own jurisdiction in refusing to grant relief on this ground. (emphasis supplied) in lesotho highlands development authority v. impregilo spa and ors., [2005]. 3 all er789[hl]., after setting out the english statutory provision, the precise question which faced the court was stated thus: [3]. section 68, so far ..... parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice for examination and report. the said committee, submitted its report to parliament on 4-8-2005, wherein the committee recommended that since many provisions of the said bill were contentious, the bill may be withdrawn and a fresh legislation may be brought .....

Vasanthi Vs. Venugopal (D) Thr. Lrs.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... deserves attention at the threshold. section 100-a of the cpc was inserted by the amendment act 104 of 1976, which reads as under: 100-a. 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 of law in ..... though this section was amended by the amendment act 46 of 1999, reference thereto is avoided as the said amendment was not given effect to.13. this provision underwent another amendment by amendment act 22 of 2002, to be refashioned as hereinbelow. 100-a: no further appeal in certain cases notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high ..... (supra), wherein it was held in unambiguous terms that only letters patent appeal, filed prior to the coming into force of the said amendment vide act 22 of 2002 would be maintainable and as a corollary, by virtue of the bar contained therein, letters patent appeal filed thereafter, would not be maintainable.16. as the contextual .....

Monsanto Technology Llc Thru the Authorised Representative Ms. Natalia ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... obligations under the world trade organisation (wto), general agreement on tariffs and 19 trade (gatt), trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (trips) agreement, leading to the patents amendment act, 2002 on 25.06.2002, in view of nature of the order proposed to be passed, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same at ..... biotechnology companies that seek to replicate the bt. gene product or the process of insertion of that gene in the genome of the cotton plant. both the patents act and ppvfr act have a link that is to protect the interests of the farmers so that they are not burdened by exorbitant rates of seeds.18. shri prashant bhusan, ..... of industrial application of the nas except to become part of a plant and to develop a transgenic plant. the threshold requirements of an invention in terms of the patents act are missing until the implant stage. the inventive qualities begin when the nas is inserted in a plant cell and not before that stage. once, the nas is .....

State of Bombay Vs. Narothamdas Jethabai and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1951SC69; (1951)53BOMLR402; [1951]2SCR51

..... by the provincial government and published in the official gazette. simultaneously with the passing of the above act the bombay legislature also enacted act (xli of 1948) called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act, 1948. by section 3 of that act clause 12 of the letters patent was amended by adding the following words :- 'except that the said high court shall not have such original jurisdiction ..... in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the small cause court at bombay or the bombay city civil court.' 81. shortly after the passing of the above acts, the validity .....

Pitambar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... sub-section (3) of section 16 pending before any authority on the date of commencement of the bihar land reforms (fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land) (amendment) act, 1982, shall abate: provided further that such appeal, review or reference arising out of orders passed under section 8 or sub-section (3) of section 16 as has abated ..... which had come to a dead end on 15.12.1977.7. this is apart from the fact that even on the merits, the division bench has committed a patent error in treating the family as one family and proceeding to limit the entitlement of the family holding to 18 acres. it was an admitted position that the father of ..... court by way of a writ petition being c.w.j.c. no.3824 of 1986, which was dismissed by the learned single judge. the appellants then filed a letters patent appeal (lpa); however, in the lpa, all the aforementioned orders were confirmed.3. in order to appreciate the contentions raised by shri nagendra rai, learned senior counsel appearing .....

Owners And Parties Interested In The Vessel M.v. Polaris Galaxy Vs. Ba ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... manner as specified in the schedule. (2) the commercial division and commercial court shall follow the provisions of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value. (3) where any provision of any rule of the jurisdictional high court ..... 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 ..... that a contract of affreightment contemplates the issuing of a bill of lading serves, therefore, to attract the application of the hague- visby rules.40. carver on bills of lading (2005) says, a bill of lading is a document issued by or on behalf of a carrier of goods by sea to the person, (usually known as the shipper) with .....

Pohla Singh @ Pohla Ram (D) by Lrs. and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT2004(5)SC117; 2004(5)SCALE574; (2004)6SCC126

..... applied to such land, namely, land in bhatinda and not to the original land which had been allotted in sind. the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1955 was amended by act no.11 of 1968 by which section 51a was inserted therein and it was specifically mentioned that section 51a 'shall be deemed always to have been inserted ..... challenging the order of the financial commission and also the order of collector dated 9.6.1961. the pepsu tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') had been amended by act no. 11 of 1968 whereby section 51a was introduced therein which provides that where any land is granted for gallantry at any time ..... as to whether the appellants had acquired an indefeasible right which cannot be taken away even by retrospective amendment of the act shall also be gone into. the allottees did not challenge this part of the order by filing any letters patent appeal. however, having regard to the view taken by us and to avoid any scope for .....

HasinuddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (1980)3SCC285; [1980]2SCR1207; 1980(12)LC412(SC)

..... acts on the ground of their unconstitutionality is, therefore, rejected. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very ..... court of allahabad, upholding the validity of the 1962 act was dismissed by the constitution bench of this court after an elaborate argument, there is no substance in the contention that either the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act, 1962 or the u.p. high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) (amendment), act 33 of 1972 is unconstitutional. the challenge to these .....