Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 1979 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.026 seconds)

Jul 16 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-16-1979

Reported in : [1981]130ITR900(Mad)

..... ) of clause 13. clause 13 states that the amount of 5,000 per annum would be paid ' by way of royalty for the supply of technical information, use of leyland patents, supply of standard velo-graphs, technical data, machine loading and other similar and necessary technical information normally supplied by leyland in accordance with their practice in other countries'. this clause ..... of 5,000 per annum for a period of five years from the date of this agreement by way of royalty for the supply of technical information, use of leyland patents, supply of standard velographs, technical data machine loading and other similar and necessary technical information normally supplied by leyland in accordance with their practice in other countries. the first ..... acquired merely technical knowledge or knowledge for the manufacture of any particular item for a specified duration, then he had acquired only a licence to use the other party's patent and knowledge and the amount would constitute ' revenue expenditure '.' 7. therefore, in determining the allowability of the amount, we have to be guided only by the terms of the agreement ..... the rate of 5,000 for a period of five years from the date of the agreement by way of royalty for the supply of technical information, use of leyland patents, supply of standard velographs, technical data relating to machine loading and other similar and necessary technical information normally supplied by leyland in accordance with their practice in other countries. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Brakes India Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-21-1979

Reported in : (1980)14CTR(Mad)259; [1982]136ITR322(Mad)

..... had only a licence for a limited period for making use of the technical knowledge of the foreign company with the right to use the patent, etc., and by reason of this agreement, the indian company did not acquire any kind of assets or an advantage of an enduring nature ..... assessee could carry on the business subsequently, of manufacturing brakes and other items used in automobiles, still if the manufactured items offend any of the patents, then the assessee would have to pay damages and could also be prevented from carrying on the manufacture. therefore, the assessee would not be in ..... shall hereafter obtain the control of any such improvement or addition to and in such case and whether the improvement or addition shall have been patented or not the grantor will (without payment, by the licensee of any further expenses occasioned thereby to the grantor) communicate and explain the same ..... devices manufactured and sold by the licensee, and... (iii) in consideration of the licence and other rights granted hereunder in respect of the schedule patents and the grantor's designs a royalty amounting to two per cent. of the factory cost of all licensed devices and spare parts for such ..... tools for all such equipment. the u.k. company was in possession of technical information relating to the above types of equipment. it also obtained patents in india in respect of several items of equipment. the assessee started to manufacture brakes and other items and, therefore, entered into an agreement .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 1979 (HC)

Coimbatore Municipality Vs. C.G. Subbiah

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-09-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Mad130

..... of rates of stallage fees, but they introduce an element of discrimination in the treatment accorded between one stall holder and another.40. in this letters patent appeal, the stall holder's learned counsel, mr. sivaramakrishniah, adopts these reasonings, for his argument. he did not contend that the council's action ..... plaintiff's stall cannot be sustained31. therefore, the decision rendered by raghavan, j. in s. a. no. 1259 of 1968 is confirmed. the utters patent appeal is dismissed with costs.balasubrahmanyam, j.32. with respect, i do not agree. 1, dissent from the view that a municipal council, while fixing the ..... 697, a division bench of this court dealt with the very same resolution passed by the coimbatore municipal council which is also involved in this letters patent appeal, and held"the fee or the levy of the impost made under sec. 266 of the tamil nadu district municipalities act has a peculiar ..... the judgment of raghavan j. in s. a. no. 1259 of 1968 the coimbatore municipality represented by its commissioner, has preferred the above letters patent appeal. the municipality contends that just as in the case of the private owner of a property, the municipality can hold and transfer property and has ..... at we, the writ petitions are dismissed. there will be no order as to costs,"14. in the second appeal, out of which the present letters patent apppeal arises, raghavm j. has accepted as aforesaid, the view expressed by ramaprasada rao, j. (as he then was) in the above said writ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 1979 (HC)

K. Somasundaram Pillai and ors. Vs. R. Dorairaj and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-05-1979

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ443

..... .m.s.a. no. 122 of 1969. the second appeals were also allowed, the decrees passed by the trial court restored. against the decision of venkataraman, j., the above letters patent appeals have been filed.7. according to the learned counsel f0r the appellants the decision of venkataraman, j., is not in accordance with law and it cannot therefore be sustained ..... g. ramanujam, j.1. all these eight appeals which have been filed on the basis of leave granted under clause 15 of the letters patent, arise out of a common judgment rendered by venkataraman, j., in 8 appeals of which 5 are second appeals and 3 are civil miscellaneous second appeals.2. the second appeals ..... view that the landholder has no right either the claim recovery of possession or mesne profits subsequent to 15th april, 1965, the date of notification. hence we allow the letters patent appeals and set aside the judgment of venkataraman, j. there will, however, be no order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 06 1979 (HC)

Arimuthu and ors. Vs. Latchoumanpoulle

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-06-1979

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ101

..... , 1960 could not divest the vested interest secured by the plaintiff under the gift deed as above. maharajan, j., agreed with the court of first instance, and hence this letters patent appeal.2. learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, would say that arunachala did have the power to cancel the gift in toto so as to divest the interest of the ..... the suit property by virtue of the double gift made pursuant to article 1048.6. for the reasons stated above, we agree with the conclusion of maharajan, j. the letters patent appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. there will be no order as to costs. ..... ramaprasada rao, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of maharajan, j., in special appeal no. 279 of 1969 (civil) agreeing with the court of first instance, karikal, and dismissing the appeal before .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1979 (HC)

Adilatchumy Ammal and anr. Vs. Ramasamy Reddiar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-1979

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ348

..... 's title to the suit property directed the defendants to deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff. he however granted leave to appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent.3. the short question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether by virtue of the dispositary clause in the will of royalu reddiar a vested interest was created ..... decree that he is the owner of the suit property and for a consequential direction that the defendants do deliver possession of the suit property to him.7. the letters patent appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed. no costs. the defendants are granted three months time to deliver possession of the property. ..... ramaprasada rao, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal is against the judgment of maharajan, j. in s.a. no. 548 of 1973 in which he granted leave to appeal against his own judgment. the relevant facts in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 1979 (HC)

English Electric Company of India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-11-1979

Reported in : [1981]132ITR251(Mad)

..... no reserve, which had to be taken into account for the purpose of capital computation. there is no discussion in the said judgment, but the matter appears to be too patent to warrant a discussion. we adopt the same view here.17. the bombay high court in c1t v. zenith steel pipes ltd. : [1978]112itr215(bom) , was concerned with a case ..... itos, it could not be said that it was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. it was held that a mistake should be an obvious, clear and patent one, and that one which was not so apparent, as in the case on hand, and which required a long and elaborate reasoning would not be a mistake apparent from .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1979 (HC)

Madras Fertilisers Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise a ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-1979

Reported in : 1981(8)ELT194(Mad)

..... ... from two or more fertilisers ... when the notification once again uses the word 'fertilisers' its intention to emphasise that the exemption would be available only to mixtures of fertilisers becomes patent. this meaning is further made clearer by the explanation which gives the meaning of the term 'mixed fertilisers' as 'mixtures of fertilisers'. therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to understand ..... collector from making any further enquiry in pursuance of the show cause notice. the writ petition was allowed and the order was confirmed in writ appeal filed under the letters patent. in the present case also it has been found that the revisional order dated 18-2-76 of the central government is a final order and there is nothing therein .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 1979 (HC)

Madras Fertilizers Limited Vs. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Mad ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-19-1979

Reported in : 1980CENCUS602D

..... .from two or more fertilisers'..when the notification once again uses the word 'fertilisers' its intention to emphasise that the exemption would be available only to mixtures of fertilisers becomes patent. this meaning is further made clearer by the explanation which gives the meaning of the term 'mixed fertilisers' as 'mixtures of fertilisers'. therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to understand ..... collector from making any further enquiry in pursuannce of the show cause notice. the writ petition was allowed and the order was confirmed in writ appeal filed under the letters patent. in the present case also, it has been found that the revisional order dated 18-2-76 of the central government is a final order and there is nothing therein .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1979 (HC)

Ramaswami Naidu Vs. M.S. Velappan and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1979

Reported in : (1979)2MLJ88

..... those at present in possession of the properties, on the basis of the declaration of their title as per the judgment of this court.23. with these observations this letter patent appeal is dismissed. but, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ..... ramaprasada rao, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal comes up before us, after leave has been granted by sethuraman, j., permitting an appeal to be filed against his judgment in s.a. no. 81 of 1973. in .....

Tag this Judgment!


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