Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents amendment act 2005 section 78 repeal and saving Court: delhi Page 12 of about 418 results (2.097 seconds)

Swarna and Another Vs. the State (Nct of Delhi)

Court : Delhi

..... code in ramesh kumar vs. state of chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 scc 618.it was held as under:12. this provision was introduced by the criminal law (second) amendment act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by ..... factual matrix of the case in hand, it will be in fitness of things to have a glance at the relevant legal provision.8. indian penal code was amended by criminal law amendment act, 1983 with a view to deal with menace of dowry deaths. explanation appended to section 498a defines cruelty in three parts. clause (a) of the said ..... , to the extent that the declarant was in fact fit to make the statements, then even without examination by the doctor, the said declaration can be relied and acted upon, provided that the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and definite. certification by a doctor is essentially a rule of caution, and therefore, the voluntary .....

Department of Telecommunications vs.tata Teleservices Limited

Court : Delhi

..... agreement ) for bihar, valid for five years from 01.04.2005. clause 4, part i given under schedule ii to the agreement enabled the usp to request for extension of time, if required. on ttl s request, ..... punjab, rajasthan, up (east) and up (west). eight different agreements for the different service areas covering 172 sdcas were signed between the parties. on 24.03.2005, parties entered into the agreement for subsidy 7. disbursement towards provision of rural household direct exchange lines (rdels) in specified short distance charging areas (sdcas) (hereafter the ..... the contract by amendment/ modification after the expiry of the agreement is invalid. issuing circulars. such 53. this court does not find the aforesaid view to be either patently illegal or unreasonable (on the touchstone of the wednesbury principle). in these proceedings, this court is not called upon to act as a court .....

Indian Progressive Construction Pvt. Ltd vs.simplex Infrastructures L ...

Court : Delhi

..... 38. insofar as domestic awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2a), added by the amendment act, 2015, to section 34. here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount ..... if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes section 31(3) of the 1996 act that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.41. the change made in section 28(3) by the amendment act really follows what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in associate builders (supra), namely, that ..... morality as understood in paragraphs 36 to 39 of associate builders to section 34(2)(b)(ii)and explanation 2 to section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the amendment act only so that western geco (supra), as understood in associate builders (supra), and paragraphs 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with. (supra). explanation 2 .....

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs.neptuno Maritime Corp.

Court : Delhi

..... awards made in india are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2a), added by the amendment act, 2015, to section 34. here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount ..... for if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes section 31(3) of the 1996 act that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award.41. the change made in section 28(3) by the amendment act really follows what is stated in paragraphs 42.3 to 45 in associate builders (supra), namely, that ..... in paragraphs 36 to 39 of associate builders (supra). explanation 2 to section 34(2)(b)(ii)and explanation 2 to section 48(2)(b)(ii) was added by the amendment act only so that western geco (supra), as understood in associate builders (supra), and paragraphs 28 and 29 in particular, is now done away with.38. insofar as domestic .....

Canbank Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd. and an ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(2)ARBLR365(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ59

..... to limit or otherwise affect any special jurisdiction or power conferred by or under any other law for the time being in force....(19)...the arbitration act which is a consolidating and amending act, being substantially in the form of a code relating to arbitration must be construed without any assumption that it was not intended to alter the law ..... in view of mohinder supply, a.s. dhupia and m/s. banwari lal (which considers babulal khimji) even an appeal under clause 10 of letters patent would not be maintainable against an order referring the parties to arbitration. consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. however, the appellant is given the ..... the present first appeal being fao (os) no. 71/2006 under order xliii read with order xliia read with section 10 of delhi high court act, 1966, against the order dated 29th august, 2005 passed by the learned single judge of this court. by way of impugned order, the learned single judge has allowed the respondent no. 1's .....

Samsung Electronics Company Limited and Another Vs. Kapil Wadhwa and O ...

Court : Delhi

..... the representative of publishing industry that the scheme of copyright law was entirely different from the trade marks act and patents act 1970. the application of the standards and principles of these two laws through the proposed amendment of section 2(m) would completely dismantle the business model currently employed , rendering several industries unviable. ..... application of convention country to include countries which are members of groups or union of countries and inter-governmental organizations; (l) incorporating other provisions, like amending the definition of trademarks, provisions for filing a single application for registration in more than one class, increasing the period of registration and renewal from 7 ..... the net income was around us$ 13.8 billion. the asset of the plaintiffs were valued as usd 294.5 billion for the year 2004-2005. d) the plaintiffs inform that it is one of leading companies in the electronic goods segment across the globe and its products are of world .....

Veena Manghani and ors. Vs. Subhash Arora

Court : Delhi

..... ltd. v daelim industrial co. ltd., (2007) 8 scc466 rashtriya ispat nigam ltd. v dewan chand ram saran, (2012) 5 scc306 (iii) the scheme of arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 envisages minimum intervention of the courts. under the amended act, the award of an arbitrator is a decree and becomes enforceable, if not challenged under section 34(2) of the ..... v) the courts are also not required to interfere with the award on the ground of being opposed to the public policy, unless it is shown that the illegality is patent and goes to the very root of the matter. award cannot be set aside on a frivolous or trivial illegality. reliance is placed on mcdermott international inc. (supra) and ..... is open to the court to consider whether the award is against the specific terms of contract and if so, interfere with it on the ground that it is patently illegal and opposed to the public policy of india.13. while in the above case, supreme court has laid the grounds on which the award can be challenged, in .....

Oil Industry Development Board vs.godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd

Court : Delhi

..... and deducted the 10% of the contract value as penalty, as per clause 21 of the gcc. learned counsel therefore submits that the learned arbitrator has committed patent illegality in allowing the claims of the respondent towards the deduction of the ld charges.16. lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ..... noticing the merits of the matter. 25. in the case of associate builders (supra), the apex court has divided patent illegality into three sub-heads as under:-"xxx 42. in the 1996 act, this principle is substituted by the patent illegality principle which, in turn, contains three subheads:42. 1. (a) a contravention of the substantive law of ..... the court's intervention would be on the merits of the award, which cannot be permitted post amendment. however, insofar as principles of natural justice are concerned, as contained in sections 18 and 34(2)(a)(iii) of the 1996 act, these continue to be grounds of challenge of an award, as is contained in paragraph 30 of .....

Rail Land Development Authority vs.bhagwati Rail Infra Pvt Ltd.

Court : Delhi

..... , it is difficult to accept that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as the tribunal has directed the performance of the development agreement. thus no interference in the impugned award is warranted even if the statutory amendments as introduced by arbitration and conciliation (amendment) act 2015 are ignored. 18. another submission made before us is that ..... reasons for the same. it is contended that the award is against public policy; and contrary to the contract and statutory provisions of law; perverse and patently illegal and thus, liable to be set aside.12. the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent is ready and willing to perform his part ..... arbitral award is concerned, the learned single judge has rightly held that an award under section 34(2a) of the act though provides for a provision to set aside the arbitral award in case of patent illegality, but the proviso to the same restricts scope of section 34(2a) as it provides that an award .....

Dhir Singh Chhima Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 64(1996)DLT295

..... the offence is prior to the date of amendment, the unamended provisions of sections 122 and 123 would be applicable to the instant ..... order passed on 31st august, 1994 invoking provisions of section 123 of the act is vitiated for the reasons alleged in the petition. (24) though the provisions of sections 122 and 123 of the army act stand amended by virtue of army (amendment) act, 1992 ( act no. 37 of 1992) there is no dispute amongst parties that since ..... limitation will be patently illegal. period of limitation prescribed under the army act cannot be overriden or circumvented by an administrative act, in exercise of the powers conferred under the rules. (26) section 123 of the army act deals with the liability of offender, who ceases to be subject to act and prior to its amendment was in the .....