Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 71 substitution of new section for section 143 Court: karnataka Page 2 of about 632 results (0.130 seconds)

Junglee Games India Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Pacific Gaming Private Limited Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Pramod Kumar K Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Pool N Club Vs. Chief Secretary

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Federation Of Indian Fantasy Sports (fifs) Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... tigadi, spl counsel) this writ petition is filed under articles226and227of the constitution of india, praying to declare and hold the karnataka police (amendment) act, 2021 (karnataka act no.28 of2021 vide annx-a as unconstitutional, as being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under articles14(equality before law), article19(protection of certain ..... pradesh11, m.j sivani vs. state of karnataka12, high court of gujarat vs. gujarat kishan mazdoor panchayat13, bharat hydro corporation ltd vs. state of10(1995) supp1scc59611 (2005) 2 scc51512 (1995) 6 scc28913 (2003) 4 scc712- 24 - assam14, varun gumber vs. union territroy of chandigarh15, b.p.sharma vs. union of inida16 ..... law expressed in 'videogames as a protected form of expression' published in georgia law review, vol. 40, no.1 (2005) pp153206 are instructive:"...courts have properly concluded that the first amendment protects video games as a form of expression. these games possess all the characteristics of an art form. first, like .....

Bapuji Educational Association Vs. State

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1986Kant119

..... the right to property was a fundamental right guaranteed under arts. 19(l)(f) and 31. but these two provisions were deleted by the constitution (44th amendment) act and the right to property was made an ordinary constitutional right under art. 300a. the right could be taken away by law enacted by the legislature. however ..... allot the candidates selected by the committee constituted by the state government to these colleges, is patently violative of arts. 14 & 19(l)(g) of the constitution and further had no nexus to the object of the act. elaborating the submission, learned counsel stated as follows: the state was under an obligation to ..... opinion, is well founded.the provision requires that a private institution established entirely at private funds must act according to the directions of the government. these provisions are patently unreasonable and totally unrelated to the object of the act. the section converts owners of the institution into subordinates of the government. sub-sec. (5) of .....

Natural Remedies Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore, Rep. by Its Chairman and Managi ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2012(4)CTC(IP)8; 2012(3)KCCR140(SN)

..... a process should be new and useful and that is also to be stated in describing the invention. section 5 of the 1970 act was omitted by the amendment act, 2005 with effect from 1st january 2005. section 5 restricted the grant of patents only to methods or process of manufacture. the definition of invention now includes product as well as a process.45. section 3 ..... for a term of seven years from 20th april 1998 which was initially valid upto 20th april 2005. however, with the enactment of the patents (amendment) act, 2002 and the framing of the patent rules, 2003, the plaintiffs patent bearing no.186857 has been subsequently extended for a period of twenty years from 20th april 1998 which expires on 20th april 2018. the certificate bearing no .....

Dodballapur Integrated Textile Park Limited Vs. Mrs Premalatha G Jain

Court : Karnataka

..... arbitration proceedings, was reversed. reiterating that the policy of the legislation is to ensure timely 38 adjudication of the disputes under the arbitration and conciliation act specially after the amendment act, 2016, the supreme court in para 14 and 15 of the judgment observed thus: 14. what is also important to note is that under ..... before the single bench of gujarat high court. while the single bench dismissed the special civil application, the division bench revered that judgment and allowed the letters patent appeal. the supreme court relying on the judgment in deep industries limited (supra) and nivedita sharma (supra) held that the non-obstante clause is provided to ..... [punjab agro industries corpn. ltd. v. kewal singh dhillon, (2008) 10 scc128, this court distinguished sbp & co. [sbp & co. v. patel engg. ltd., (2005) 8 scc618 stating that it will not apply to a case of a non-appointment of an arbitrator. this court held: (punjab agro industries corpn. ltd. case [punjab agro .....

Gurushanth Pattedar Vs. Mahaboob Shahi Kulburga Mills and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2005Kant377; ILR2005KAR2503; 2005(6)KarLJ270

..... division bench judgment in kalpana theatre's case held as under:'the scope of section 4 of the act in the context of the other provisions of law and particularly the amendment made by amendment act 12 of 1973 is admittedly wider than letters patent or the acts of the other states which were referred to or relied upon by the division bench in kalpana ..... of habeas corpus and petitions under articles 227 and 228 of the constitution are required to be dealt with by a single judge and the objects and reasons of the amending act do suggest that the legislature wanted such petitions to be dealt with by a single judge with a right of appeal to a bench of two judges. the learned ..... referred to as the act) and whether the full bench judgment of this court in ritz hotels (mysore) limited v. state of karnataka and ors., 1966 (7)klj 600 answering the aforesaid question in the affirmative lays down the correct law. when this appeal came up for hearing before two of us on 17.1.2005 the bench was of the .....

Dodballapur Integrated Textile Park Limited Vs. Mr Vinod G Jain

Court : Karnataka

..... arbitration proceedings, was reversed. reiterating that the policy of the legislation is to ensure timely 38 adjudication of the disputes under the arbitration and conciliation act specially after the amendment act, 2016, the supreme court in para 14 and 15 of the judgment observed thus: 14. what is also important to note is that under ..... before the single bench of gujarat high court. while the single bench dismissed the special civil application, the division bench revered that judgment and allowed the letters patent appeal. the supreme court relying on the judgment in deep industries limited (supra) and nivedita sharma (supra) held that the non-obstante clause is provided to ..... [punjab agro industries corpn. ltd. v. kewal singh dhillon, (2008) 10 scc128, this court distinguished sbp & co. [sbp & co. v. patel engg. ltd., (2005) 8 scc618 stating that it will not apply to a case of a non-appointment of an arbitrator. this court held: (punjab agro industries corpn. ltd. case [punjab agro .....