Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Page 95 of about 5,310 results (0.060 seconds)

Aug 11 2008 (HC)

Astor Technologies Rep. by Its Partner, Vasudevan, Vs. L.B. Thiagaraja ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2009(1)304

..... 15.06.2002 raising objections and that the concerned authority has not issued any notice to the respondent/plaintiff or heard the objections of the respondent/plaintiff before granting the patent in issue and in this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff informs this court that he will work out his remedy before the appropriate authority in accordance with ..... any reference to the appellants/defendants and that he is the true inventor of the said software and has the absolute copyright in the said software apart from seeking the patent therefor and therefore, he has the right to trade and reproduce the same as an author of the work to the exclusion of all others including the appellants/defendants and ..... and that the respondent/plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.05.2002 to the appellants/defendants and also filed form-6 before the controller of patents on 15.06.2002 raising objections for grant of patent in the name of first defendant.13. the appellants/defendants have lodged a criminal complaint against the respondent/plaintiff on 25.06.2002. the suit ..... . the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants brings to the notice of this court that when the written statement was filed, the patent issued was pending before the authority concerned and as on date, the appellants/defendants have obtained a patents in their favour. to this, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the respondent/plaintiff has already filed form .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 18 1997 (HC)

N. Dhanalakshmi and ors. Vs. S. Eknathan, Proprietor, Eknath Real Esta ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1998)1MLJ132

..... the suit for specific performance of an agreement in respect of land is not a suit for land so as to be included within the ambit of letters patent (madras), clause 12 in the light of what is stated above.23. the court has granted leave to the plaintiff to sue the defendants on 6.10 ..... action 'in rem'. they are 'toto coelo' apart; they belong to differ-ent jurisdictions which are now no doubt fused. the object of c1.12, letters patent is to bar the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the high court as to actions in rem, when the land is situ-ate outside madras; it does not ..... a contract to sell made in madras by parties resident therein, a suit for land within the meaning of clause 12 of the letters patent, and so not cognizable by the high court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. ' the last two paragraphs in the said judgment at pages 726 and 727 ..... respect of the land, the full bench of this court has held that such a suit is not for land within the meaning of clause 12 of letters patent (madras). in the said decision the full bench was considering the question 'is a suit by a purchaser of lands situate outside madras for specific performance of ..... the said judgment, it is clearly stated that in order to consider whether a suit is covered by the expression 'suit for land' in c1.12 of letters patent, one has to consider whether it is for obtaining a decree for possession, or a decision on title to land, or is something different, but involves the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2001 (HC)

P.L. Chemical Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Cit

Court : Chennai

Reported in : [2003]86ITD46(Mad)

..... would market mosquito repellents, mosquito mats, mosquito heaters, etc., which hitherto the assessee was not only marketing but also manufacturing on its own right with payment of royalty for the patent called 'banish'. for and from 24-5-1995 by means of this agreement the assessee brought down its shutters in regard to marketing, distribution and sale of any product on ..... ., bil wanted to take advantage of the said facility and on that basis entered into an agreement with the assessee for manufacture of the products for which bil had the patent rights. further bil had clearly stated that the assessee who is the manufacturer shall sell the manufactured product according to the terms of bil to bil only and it would ..... year 1995-96 was carrying on the business of manufacture of mosquito repellents, mats and mat heater machines under the name and style of 'banish mats'. 'banish mats' was a patent that was owned by m/s. freight master engineering p. ltd., a sister concern of the assessee. the assessee after manufacturing the said mosquito repellents, mats, and mat heater machines .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2002 (HC)

S. Mazhaimeni Pandian, Advocate and Four ors. Vs. the State of Tamil N ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (2002)3MLJ513

..... educational institution-whether state-owned or state-recognised - in recognition of their 'right to education' under the constitution. charging capitation fee in consideration of admission to educational institutions, is a patent denial of a citizen's right to education under the constitution. 18. indian civilisation recognises education as one of the pious obligations of the human society. to establish and administer .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2010 (HC)

M/S.Sonali Rep. by Its Partner Mr.Amit K.Saiya, Vs. C.Balaji.

Court : Chennai

..... the learned appellate authority in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and as such, both the orders of the concerned authorities suffer from serious irregularity and patent illegality and as such, this court is left with no other option but to interfere with the said orders and accordingly, set aside both the orders of the authorities in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2012 (HC)

M.K.StalIn Vs. the Secretary of Municipal Administration and Water Sup ...

Court : Chennai

..... in para-1 of the affidavit as though they purchased 66 acres of land and handed over a portion to the corporation for the construction of a school, is a patent lie.iii) interestingly, the affidavit in support of the impleading petitions in both the writ petitions, are sworn to by one mr.k.daivasikamani. while in the impleading petition in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2012 (HC)

Vodafone India Limited Vs. M/S. R.K. Productions Pvt. Ltd and Others

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 2012(5)LW626

..... involved and the said provision cannot curtail the rights of the copyright owner by operation of proviso of section 81 which carves out an exception cases relating to copyright or patent infringement. 32.the second contention that no leave has been obtained by the plaintiffs under clause 12 is concerned, this issue has been squarely answered by the division bench ..... the adding of proviso is rather not only exclusionary but also clarificatory in nature which clarifies that the provisions of it act may not restrict the rights under copyright act or patent act as its tries to create and confer harmony between two laws and enactments so that they can operate in their respective fields. thus, there is harmony by adopting ..... meant for all other internet wrongs wherein intermediaries may be involved including auctioning, networking servicing, news dissemination, uploading of pornographic content but not certainly relating to the copyright infringement or patent infringement which has been specifically excluded by way of proviso to section 81. this can be only possible harmonious construction between the two acts which makes both the acts workable ..... though the respondents were not residing within the jurisdiction of this court, the suit has been filed against them. no leave has been obtained under clause 12 of the letters patent. there was no cause of action against the defendants in filing the suit. there was no specific overt act has been attributed to the respondents. the suit is also .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2006 (TRI)

M/S. Speed Birds Private Ltd., Rep. by Its Director, Vellore and Anoth ...

Court : Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chennai

..... as it may. the allegation in the complaint that he gave his passport and letters of invitation to attend both the conferences in the third week of september 1996 is patently false. there is absolutely no proof with regard to the malacca conference invitation prior to 4.11.1996. 12. again, in the complaint in paragraph 13 he says that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2013 (HC)

Mediaone Global Entertainment Ltd. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Central E ...

Court : Chennai

..... impugned circular seeks to overreach the provisions of the act for the purpose of levy of sales tax on revenue sharing arrangements entered into by the petitioner and is in patent contravention of article 265 of the constitution in terms of which no tax ought to be levied or collected without the authority of the law. under the guise of clarifying .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (HC)

Standard Corporation India Ltd Vs. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd

Court : Chennai

..... . the learned counsel for the appellant had further stated that no relief against the alleged infringement of passing off can be claimed, in respect of the rights relating to copyrights, patents and designs. a claim can be made only in respect of infringement of such rights, under section 16 of the trade marks act, 1999.7. it had been further stated ..... in m.c.production vs. a.sundaresan (air1976madras22 wherein, it had been held as follows: ".section 15 declares that no copyright shall subsist in any design registered under the indian patents and designs act, 1911. sub-section (2) of this section deals with a particular design which is capable of being registered under the indian ..... patents and designs act, 1911, but, which has not been so registered. such design shall cease as soon as any article to which the design has been applied has been reproduced .....

Tag this Judgment!


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