Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 66 amendment of section 126 Year: 2005 Page 1 of about 972 results (0.209 seconds)

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 .....

Partap Singh Vs. Smt. Satya Devi and anr.

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2005HP37

..... five thousand rupees. this section came to be substituted by virtue of the provisions of section 11 of the code of civil procedure (amendment act) 1999 and section 5 of the amending act of 2002. section 16 of the amending act of 2002 saves certain appeals from the bar created by section 102 of the code and the relevant part thereof reads as under :' ..... -2001. however, this conclusion by itself has no bearing on the question of maintainability of the present appeal.9. section 102 of the code as substituted by the amending act of 2002 came into force with effect from 1-7-2002. it provides that no second appeal shall lie from any decree when the subject matter of the original ..... there was an appeal pending before the high court on 12-11-1962 i.e. the date immediately preceding the enforcement of up high court (abolition of letters patent appeals) act which came into force on 13-11-1962 which abolished the right of such appeal. against this background and in view of section 582-a of the code of .....

iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2005SC514; 2005(2)ALD34(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)191; 2005(2)ALT32(SC); 2005(2)AWC1872(SC); 2005(3)BomCR781; (2005)107BOMLR967; (2005)2CALLT59(SC); 2005(1)CTC304; 118(2005)D

..... . only a specific provision to the contrary can exclude the special law. the specific provision would be a provision like section 100a.'48. far from doing away with the letters patent, the amending act of 2002 has left unscathed the provisions of section 129 and what follows therefrom. the contention must, therefore, fail.49. in the result, we are of the view that ..... high court is empowered to make rules 'not inconsistent with the letters patent to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original jurisdiction as it shall think fit.'44. mr. ram jethmalani then put forth what he submits is the legal effect of section 16 of the amending act, 2002. in his submission, the legal effect of this provision is to .....

Shri Bharatbhai J. Vyas, Prop. Vs. Ito

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2005)279ITR41(Ahd.)

..... ao was conformed.4. the learned counsel for the assessee contended that by amendment brought by finance (no. 2) act of 1998 w.e.f. 1-4-1999 provision for allowing depreciation on intangible assets has been provided asunder: ii) known-how, patents, copyrights, trade mark, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights ..... may be innumerable number of intangible assets, which may be transacted in business realities. we have to deal with intangible assets as specified by the amended act i.e. amendment to section 32(1)(ii) there cannot be a dispute about the terming such compensation as a "goodwill", but while deciding the allowability of depreciation ..... what is the material to decide me controversy is whether the payment for goodwill simplicitor without acquiring any know-how, patents, trade-marks, copyrights etc. is eligible for depreciation in four comers of specific amendment to section 32(1)(ii) in our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances case, (he amount paid by .....

Bharatbhai J. Vyas Vs. Ito (Baroda)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2005)97ITD248(Ahd.)

..... officer was confirmed.the learned counsel for the assessee contended that by amendment brought by finance (no. 2) act of 1998 with effect from 1-4-1999 provision for allowing depreciation on intangible assets has been provided as under: (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trademark, licenses, franchises or any other business or commercial rights ..... may be innumerable number of intangible assets, which may be transacted in business realities. we have to deal with intangible assets as specified by the amended act i.e., amendment to section 32(1)(ii). there cannot be a dispute about the terming such compensation as a 'goodwill', but while deciding the allowability of ..... is the material to decide the controversy is whether the payment for goodwill simplicitor without acquiring any know-how, patents, trade-marks, copyrights etc. is eligible for depreciation in four corners of specific amendment to section 32(1)(ii) in our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances case, the amount paid .....

Merck Kgaa Vs. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit no. 03 1237.argued april 20, 2005 decided june 13, 2005 it is not an act of [patent] infringement to use or import into the united states a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a federal law which regulates the ..... (a). in 1984, congress enacted an exemption to this general rule, see drug price competition and patent term restoration act of 1984, 202, 98 stat. 1585, as amended, 35 u. s. c. 271(e)(1), which provides: it shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the united states or import into ..... to the development and submission of information under a federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs . the federal food, drug, and cosmetic act (fdca), ch. 675, 52 stat. 1040, as amended, 21 u. s. c. 301 et seq ., is a federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs. see 21 u. s .....

V.K. Walnekar and ors. Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya GramIn Bank and a ...

Court : Chhattisgarh

Reported in : AIR2006Chh92

..... by operation of law i.e., by coming into force of the m. p. uchha nyayalay (letters patent appeal samapti) adhiniyam 1981. it is in between this period of 27-8-1984 and 11-1-2005, the m.p. reorganisation act 2000 came into force and high court of chhattisgarh was created as an effect of section 21 of the ..... appropriate government may, before the expiration of two years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so made until altered, repealed or ..... erstwhile state of madhya pradesh and creation of the new state of chhattisgarh. they continue in force until and unless altered, repealed or amended. a similar view in relation to sections 84 & 85 of bihar reorganization act 2000 has been taken by the apex court in the matter of commissioner of commercial taxes, ranchi and anr. v. swarn rekha cokes .....

Wockhardt Limited Vs. Hetero Drugs Limited,

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2006)1MLJ542; 2006(32)PTC65(Mad)

..... the appellant on 06.06.2003 with effect from the date of application, namely, 08.05.2000. after introduction of the patent amendment act, the appellant, on 28.03.2002, made an application for product patent and he obtained manufacturing licence for pharmaceutical preparation nadifloxacin 1% cream on 27.04.2002 from the drugs controller general of india. ..... already in force.41. it is also stated by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the first respondent/defendant has introduced the product only in april,2005, and, as such, section 11a would not apply.42. in reply to the said submission, it is contended by the learned senior counsel for the first ..... coming to know of the same, appellant filed a suit in c.s. no. 456 of 2005 for permanent injunction, restraining hetero drugs limited, nicholas piramal (india) limited and adyar drug house, respondents 1 to 3, from infringing the (i) patent no. 188847; (ii) emr granted to it and (iii) restraining the respondents from manufacturing or .....

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Banti Devi and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : IV(2005)ACC121; 2007ACJ879; (2005)141PLR145

..... procedure (hereinafter to be referred as 'the code') w.e.f. 01.07.2002 vide code of civil procedure (amendment) act, 2002. the said substituted section reads as under:-'100-a. no further appeal in certain cases:- notwithstanding anything contained in any letters patent for any high court or in an other instrument having the force of law or in another law for ..... decree of such single judge.'3. a seven judges full bench of this court in letters patent appeal no. 225 of 2003, balbir kaur v. bhim singh, (2005-1)139 p.l.r. 848 (f.b.) decided on december 01, 2004 has held that the letters patent appeal would not be maintainable against the judgment and order passed by the learned single judge .....

Smt. Mahabiri Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Haryana, Through the Coll ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2006)142PLR434

..... rs, 2,40,000/- i.e. the rate assessed by the land acquisition collector. the claimants were also held entitled to benefits of statutory provisions of the amended act.3. the claimant-landowners remained dissatisfied and approached this court through various first appeals. certain appeals were also filed by the state of haryana, municipal committee and ..... rate of rs.90/- per sq. yards.5. the claimant-landowners have still remained dissatisfied and have prayed for further enhancement of compensation through the present letters patent appeals.6. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.7. all the outset, certain observations ..... landowners in the present acquisition proceedings are also entitled to a similar compensation as had been awarded in bindu garg's case, as enhanced by the letters patent bench in brij mohan's case decided on december 17, 2004. we further find that classification of the land in two categories by the reference court .....