Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 66 amendment of section 126 Court: allahabad Year: 1977 Page 1 of about 1 results (0.120 seconds)

Jan 31 1977 (HC)

Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-31-1977

Reported in : 1979(4)ELT391(All)

..... the time of the removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory or other premises aforesaid.'7. for section 4 of the act, a new section was substituted by the central excises and salt (amendment) act, 1973. the relevant portions of sub-section (4) of new section 4 read :'4(4). for the purpose of this section, ..... article with which we are concerned.4. sub-section (1) of section 3 of the act provides, inter alia, that duties of excise shall be levied and collected on all excisable goods produced ..... . clause (f) of section 2 of the act defines 'manufacture' as including 'any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product'.separate definitions of 'manufacture' in sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of that clause with reference to certain goods like tobacco, salt and patent or proprietary medicines, have no application to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 1977 (HC)

Raghubir Sahai Bhatnagar Vs. Bhakt Sajjan

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Oct-28-1977

Reported in : AIR1978All139

..... he had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. the proviso added by this court has now been ingrafted in rule 13 itself by parliament by the amending act no. 104 of 1976. admittedly, at the relevant period when the question arose before the courts below the proviso as added by this court ?was in force. both the ..... summons on the defendant by registered post was not sufficient, as such the ex parte decree was rightly set aside by the court below. the learned judge considered the orissa amendment to order ix rule 13 which also contained a proviso to the effect that no ex parte decree shall be set aside on the ground of irregularity in the service ..... deliberately despite knowledge of the date of hearing in the suit. the findings of the courts below are findings of fact which in our opinion, do not suffer from any patent error of law and it is not open to this court to reconsider the evidence or record fresh findings in the present proceedings.5. shri k. c. saksena, learned .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //