Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Year: 1948

C.P. Bannerjee Vs. B.S. Irani

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1949Bom182; (1949)51BOMLR122

..... , but, after i did so, my attention was drawn to the fact that the bombay legislature had simultaneously with the enactment of bombay act xliv of 1948 also enacted bombay act xli of 1948 called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act, 1948. this necessitated a further 'argument and in the result i quashed the judgment which i had dictated on october 6, 1948 ..... been originally instituted in that court. the bombay legislature also simultaneously enacted bombay act xli of 1948 called the bombay high court letters patent amendment act, 1948, by section 3 whereof an amendment was made in clause 12 of the letters patent of the high court in the last sentence thereof, which as amended read as under :except that the said high court shall not have such .....

Kavasji Pestonji Dalal Vs. Rustomji Sorabji Jamadar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1949Bom42; (1948)50BOMLR450

..... -council to which i have just referred was passed. therefore, the position is clear that although clause 44 permitted only the central legislature to amend the letters patent after the passing of the government of india act, 1935, it was the appropriate legislature which was given that power and under the government of india ..... and (4) the jurisdiction of the high court under the letters patent. before proceeding to consider these objections, i may state that the act which has been challenged is admittedly within the scope of the legislative authority of the local legislature. the act seeks to amend and consolidate the law relating to control of rents and repairs of certain ..... in cases of emergency under section 72 of that act. mr. seervai's contention is that even now after the passing of the government of india act, 1985, it is only the central legislature that can amend or alter the letters patent. section 292 of the government of india act, 1935, provided that the existing law of india .....

Banwari Lal Ram Deo Vs. the Board of Trustees

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1949P& H165

..... existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be set aside, amended, muddied or in any way affected otherwise than as provided in this act.the section becomes applicable only where a suit is brought for a declaration about the existence or non-existence, or validity ..... although the bench gave no final decision on the subject, and dismissed the appeal on the merits, khosla, j. who wrote the judgment of the letters patent bench, while discussing the preliminary objection raised on the respondent's behalf to the competency of the appeal, expressed an inclination to agree with the madras view ..... , even, if the particular reference was invalid, that could not affect the validity or the operation of the arbitration agreement. defendant 1 has filed a letters patent appeal from the judgment of the learned single judge.17. mr. bishen narain, the learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection to the competency of .....

United States Vs. Line Material Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... are based upon opinions of this court, that element is inherent in the rule of stare decisis. the exceptional recent activity in seeking, by statutory amendment, a change in the patent laws as interpreted in the bement and general electric cases indicates a widespread understanding that, if such interpretation is to be changed, the remedy calls for ..... 324 u. s. 370 , 324 u. s. 378 . this monopoly may be enjoyed exclusively by the patentee, or he may assign the patent "or any interest therein" to others. rev.stat. 4898, as amended 55 stat. 634. as we have pointed out, a patentee may license others to make and vend his invention and collect a royalty therefor. thus ..... , we have a statutory monopoly by the patent and by the sherman act a prohibition not only of monopoly or attempt to monopolize, but .....

V. Damodara Menon and ors. Vs. P. Chathu Achan

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1949)1MLJ50

..... . raman nayar : air1946mad37 which was affirmed on letters patent appeal by a bench in janaki amma v. raman nayar : air1946mad532 .2. this decision naturally created surprise among the people governed by that law and there was agitation by the public with the result, the government came forward with the amending act called ' the madras act no. xxxii of 1947.' by section 2 of the ..... amending act the expression 'and is subsisting on such date' occurring in section 4, sub-section (1), clauses (b)(i) and (b)(iii) were omitted. there .....

Ramji Lal S/O Mahadeo Parshad Vs. Rex

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1949CriLJ271

..... to everybody within the criminal appellate jurisdiction of each high court to make an application under section 491 of the present criminal procedure code. by the criminal law amendment act, 1923, section 491 was amended and was enacted in the following terms:(1) any high court may, whenever it thinks fit, direct -(a) that a person within the limits ..... the court; they do not affect the jurisdiction of the single benches or division benches constituted under the provisions of section 108, government of india act, 1915. clause 35, letters patent, also empowers the high court from time to time to make rules for delegating to any .registrar, prothonotary or master or other official of ..... country. on the other hand, it has been clearly excluded by reason of the phraseology of section 491 read with section 108, government of india act, 1915, and clause 20, letters patent. i therefore repel the contention of mr, sethi that an application under section 491, criminal p. c, can be taken from judge to .....

Bashir Ahmad Vs. the Crown

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1951CriLJ1041

..... india, 1915, & also of the governor general in cases of emergency under section 72 of that act, & may be in all respects amended & altered thereby. it is obvious chat when the letters patent is subject to the powers of the indian legislature, & may be amended & altered thereby, they cannot be assumed to be exhaustive of the powers of the h. c ..... question for consideration is 'whether the power of revision exercised by this ct. under section 622, civil p.c. is, within the meaning of the high courts act & the letters patent constituting this ct., a part of the ct's appellate jurisdiction.now according to webster's dictionary the first meaning, in law, of the noun 'appeal' ..... officers in the province of punjab who were authorized to refer cases to the chief ct. of the punjab. similarly this ct. (lahore) was intended by the letters patent to act as a ct. of reference & thus to hear & determine all cases tried by any officers or cts. possessing jurisdiction in the provinces of the punjab & delhi .....

Ramji Lal S/O Mahadeo Parsad Vs. Rex

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1949P& H67

..... to everybody within the criminal appellate jurisdiction of each high court to make an application under section 491 of the present criminal procedure code. by the criminal law amendment act, 1928, section 491 was amended and was enacted in the following terms:(1) any high court may, whenever it thinks fit, direct--(a) that a person within the limits ..... the court; they do not affect the jurisdiction of the single benches ok division benches constituted under the provisions of section 108, government of india act, 1915. clause 35, letters patent, also empowers the high court from time to time to make rules foe delegating to any registrar, prothonotary of master or other official of the ..... . on the other hand, it has been clearly excluded by reason of the phraseology of section 491 read with section 108, government of india act, 1915, and clause 26, letters patent. i therefore repel the contention of mr. sethi that an application under section 491, criminal p.c., can be taken from judge to judge .....

United States Vs. Paramount Pictures, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... here on appeal [ footnote 1 ] from a judgment of a three-judge district court [ footnote 2 ] holding that the defendants had violated 1 and 2 of the sherman act, 26 stat. 209, as amended, 50 stat. 693, 15 u.s.c. 1, 2, and granting an injunction and other relief. 66 f.supp. 323; 70 f.supp. 53. the suit was ..... one feature is conditioned upon the licensee's taking one or more other features. [ footnote 11 ] page 334 u. s. 158 we approve that restriction. the copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. in fox film corp. v. doyal, 286 u. s. 123 , 286 u. s. 127 , chief justice hughes spoke as follows ..... minimum admission prices which had the effect of suppressing price competition between exhibitors. pp. 334 u. s. 143 -144. (c) a copyright may no more be used than a patent to deter competition between rivals in the exploitation of their licenses. p. 334 u. s. 144 . 3. the district court's finding that there was a conspiracy to restrain trade .....

United States Vs. United States Gypsum Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... admit that, in the absence of whatever protection is afforded by valid patents, the licensing arrangements described would be in violation of the sherman act. page 333 u. s. 387 accordingly, the government sought to amend its complaint to allege that the "bubble board" patents were not valid. the trial court held that the government was estopped ..... to attack the validity of the patents in the present proceeding, on the ground that ..... so that the import of the witnesses' testimony was conflicting. on cross-examination, most of the witnesses denied that they had acted in concert page 333 u. s. 396 in securing patent licenses or that they had agreed to do the things which in fact were done. where such testimony is in conflict with contemporaneous .....