Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 57 amendment of section 107a Year: 2007 Page 3 of about 65 results (0.213 seconds)

Koheera Finishing Centre Vs. Regional Director, E.S.i. and anr.

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2008ACJ541; RLW2008(1)Raj27

..... been provided before the high court under section 10f of the act, that is, an appeal from the original order. then in that case, no further letters patent appeal shall lie to the division bench of the same high court. this amendment has taken away the power of the letters patent in the matter where the learned single judge hears an ..... appeal from the original order. original order in the present case was passed by clb exercising the power under section 397 and 398 of the act and appeal has been preferred under section ..... to the repeal act of 2001, amendment in cpc was brought w.e.f. 1.7.2002. as per amended provisions of section 100a c.p.c. if any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by the learned single judge of the high court, no notwithstanding further anything letters patent contained in any appeal .....

Microsoft Corp. Vs. Atandt; Corp.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... for assembly and use abroad. 406 u. s., at 532. focusing its attention on deepsouth , congress enacted 271(f). see patent law amendments act of 1984, 101, 98 stat. 3383; fisch & allen, the application of domestic patent law to exported software: 35 u. s. c. 271(f), 25 u. pa. j. int l econ. l. 557, 565 (2004) ( congress specifically ..... footnote 10 the federal circuit panel in this case, relying on that court s prior decision in eolas technologies inc. v. microsoft corp. , 399 f. 3d 1325 (2005), held that software qualifies as a component under 271(f). we are unable to determine, however, whether the federal circuit panels regarded as a component software in the abstract, ..... performed by a computer. brief for respondent 27 28; tr. of oral arg. 46. see also eolas technologies inc. v. microsoft corp. , 399 f. 3d 1325, 1339 (ca fed. 2005) ( [s]oftware code drives the functional nucleus of the finished computer product. (quoting imagexpo, l. l. c. v. microsoft corp. , 299 f. supp. 2d 550, 553 (ed .....

Rama and Company Vs. State of M.P. and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(3)MPHT325; 2007(3)MPLJ154

..... that letters patent by itself does not create bar exercise of jurisdiction by the learned single judge. the bar is created by the amendment in the civil procedure code. exercise of original jurisdiction is not a condition precedent for exercising the jurisdiction by division bench under lpa. while, as per section 2 of the adhiniyam, 2005, a judgment ..... evacuee (supra), are as under:(i) certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction;(ii) certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles ..... of natural justice;(iii) the court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. one consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior .....

R.J. Shah and Co. Vs. H.P. State Electricity Board

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2007SC2682; 2007(9)SCALE297; (2007)10SCC620

..... state of himachal pradesh. on 1.11.1956 'part-c' states were abolished by the constitution (7th amendment) act. accordingly, the erstwhile part-c state became the state of himachal pradesh. on 1.5.1967 the delhi (high court) act, 1966 came into force. the jurisdiction extended over himachal pradesh by carving out delhi and himachal pradesh from ..... impugned judgment is a full bench decision of delhi high court which decided that if order of the learned single judge is in its ordinary original jurisdiction, no letters patent would lie to the division bench of the high court. (see university of delhi v. hafiz mohd. said : air1972delhi102 ). the division bench in the impugned ..... of judicature at lahore has no application in the state of himachal pradesh and hence no appeal either under clause 9 or clause 10 of the said letters patent would lie to this high court. the appeal against the judgment of a single judge of this court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction will, however, lie .....

M.U.S. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2008)12VST123(P& H)

..... m. m. kumar, j) was a member was considering the effect of two acts, i.e., the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 1999 and the code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002 which came into force with effect from july 1, 2002, on the letters patent appeals in the high court which right had been taken away by the said ..... amendments. the issue which was formulated reads as under:(1) whether letters patent appeal would lie against ..... , otherwise it would continue to be an embryological right. the letters patent appeals which are to be filed after july 1, 2002 shall be governed by the amended provisions.13. in view of the above, it would be clear that section 92 of the 2005 act repealed the remedy of filing the reference which was available under the .....

Ram Nandan Singh and ors. Vs. A.G. Office Employees Co-op. House Const ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN85; JT2007(12)SC86

..... the learned single judge in the judgment under appeal. he will also make a search to find out whether the concerned amendment of the by-laws of the society had been approved by the registrar and whether any document is available in the ..... members of the society. they have been pursuing their cause before the high court. they were impleaded as parties in the letters patent appeal. not only in the capacity of interveners but also as persons aggrieved, they are, therefore, entitled to file petition for ..... the registrar, cooperative societies again having been raised, the division bench of the high court by an order dated 2.9.2005 directed as under:4. having heard the learned counsels of the respective parties on the said report and after considering the ..... arrive at a decision. an order by a statutory authority, therefore, must be passed in terms of the provisions of the act where for the inquiry report must be looked into. the report of a retired judge of the high court, indisputably will carry .....

Fdc Limited and ors. Vs. Sanjeev Khandelwal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2007(3)139; 2007(35)PTC436(Mad)

..... granted on 19.12.2005, whereas the firs office action of the corresponding us patent application was on 8.3.2007 i.e., subsequent to the grant of patent in india and therefore, the question of breach of statutory duty envisaged under section 8 of the patents act does not arise. 13. it is also disputed by the learned counsel for ..... the learned senior counsels that though it is not denied that a few opportunities are given to an applicant by an examiner of a patent to rectify unacceptable claims by deleting them or amending them, the same is not indefinite and when an alleged invention is prima facie found not to be novel no amount of such communication ..... can have the result of vesting it with novelty. according to the revision petitioners the us office action has rejected the patent claimed by the plaintiffs by .....

Indian Oil Corporation Limited and anr. and Harinagar Sugar Mills Limi ...

Court : Patna

..... the last constitution bench decision of the supreme court in jindal stainless ltd. : [2006]283itr1(sc) for determining whether a tax was regulatory or compensatory in character. the amendment act, 2006 re-defined 'entry of goods' in the following manner:2(c) 'entry of goods', with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means, entry of goods ..... compensatory tax.36. mr. k.n. jain, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner in c.w.j.c. no. 6540 of 2002 assailed the act (following the 2001 amendment) for being patently discriminatory in respect of the scheduled goods coming from outside the state. mr. jain further submitted that though the last ..... a new liability that was not in existence from before. that being the position, to make the amendment effective from the date of the inception of the act was patently unfair, unjust and unreasonable and amounted to the state overstepping its legislative powers. in support of the submission, he relied upon the decisions of the supreme .....

Crocodile Int. Pte Ltd. and anr. Vs. Lacoste S.A. and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(100)DRJ547

..... does the same determine the controversy in the suit or any part thereof so as to constitute a 'judgment' appealable under the delhi high court act or clause 10 of the letters patent as applicable to this court. the order passed by the learned single judge has examined the additional documents produced by the plaintiff-respondent and come ..... case (supra) did not find favor with the supreme court in jugal kishore paliwal v. s. sat jit singh : (1984)1scc358 . that was a case where an amendment to the written statement was sought and allowed at the time of framing of issues. an appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed by a division bench of this ..... 10(1) of the delhi high court had to be interpreted by reference to the tests laid down by different pronouncements while interpreting the said expression under the letters patent. the above view was followed in the public trustee v. rajeshwar tyagi and ors. air 1972 del 302.7. the restricted interpretation placed upon the term 'judgment' .....

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

..... a review as is understood in legal parlance. the power is limited to correction of mistakes apparent from the record. what is significant is that the section envisages amendment of the original order of the tribunal and not a total substitution thereof. that being the legal position, the tribunal was not justified in recalling the order passed ..... it ceases to be an apparent error, the so-called inaccuracies or wrong recording of facts as alleged were not patent mistake which constitute the sine qua non for exercise of power under section 254(2) of the act.respectfully following the decisions of the hon'ble high courts including that of the hon'ble jurisdictional high court and ..... own order which is apparent from the record. this is merely a power of amending its order. the pow er of rectification under section 254(2) can jj be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to .....