Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 42 results (0.025 seconds)

Oct 30 2001 (TRI)

The Income Tax Officer, T.D.S. - Vs. Raj Television Network Ltd.,

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Oct-30-2001

..... of a literary, artistic or scientific work, including cinematography films or work on films, tape or other mens of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark, design, or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience; and (b) payments of any kind received as consideration for the use ..... dictionary, "royalty" was defined, inter alia as (a) payment by lessee to the owner of the land for privilege of working mine; (b) the amount paid to a patents for the use of his patent; (c) payment made to author for books, etc., sold. = as per chambers english dictionary, cambridge u.k., 'royalty' - has been defined as a payment made to oil ..... the income of the recipient chargeable under the head 'capital gains' for: i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property; ii) the imparting of the any information concerning the working of, or the use of ..... foreign company for design and engineering equipment. amounts paid to foreign company under contract not "royalties". contract did not refer to any patent owned by supplier which the buyer was permitted to exploit. no transfer or licence of any patent, invention, model or design. no accrual of income to foreign supplier in india." "the term "royalty" normally cannotes the payment made by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 2001 (HC)

Roman Catholic Church, Maniaran Kunnu at Amsi, Rep. by Its Parish Prie ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-26-2001

Reported in : (2001)2MLJ190

..... passed by the court below in the present case is a case decided. there is also failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by the court below on a patent misconception, particularly when the earlier application had been allowed unopposed and the relevant documents had also come to court.22. in chinnaraju naidu v. bavani bai, 1981(ii) mlj 354 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 27 2001 (HC)

K. Rama Naidu and 6 ors. Vs. S.K. Parthasarathy Naidu and 2 ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-27-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Mad287; (2002)1MLJ186

..... it because some material which it ought to have considered had escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason or because it suffers from a patent error which cannot be sustained by any process of reasoning. the court cannot under cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case over again because it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2001 (HC)

Ayisha Beevi Vs. Dhanalakshmi and 5 ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-09-2001

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ637

..... plaintiff was not having money between 1978 and 1981 as such the finding of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his contract is patently illegal. learned counsel for the 1st defendant further argued that the plaintiff has miserably failed in complying with the mandatory requirement of section 16(c) of the specific relief act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 2001 (HC)

Kuki Leather (P.) Ltd. Vs. T.N.K. Govindaraju Chettiar and Co.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-28-2001

Reported in : [2002]110CompCas474(Mad)

..... would continue even after that order and that either the appellants or the respondent may seek any directions regarding the investigation of the affairs of the company. 6. it is patent from the background in which the order came to be made, the contents of the order and the conduct of the parties in relation thereto subsequent to the order--the ..... those who were in control of it, syed salim and k. anandkumar, the persons who had agreed to purchase the shares are now before us in appeal under the letters patent. 10. mr. mayilswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the order made by the clb is not an executable order and that even if it be regarded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 2001 (HC)

Pondy Chem Private Ltd. Represented by Its General Manager and anr. Vs ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-09-2001

Reported in : (2001)3MLJ644

..... a place where the court have the jurisdiction. hence, under clause 12 of letters patent this court have territorial jurisdiction.9. learned counsel appearing for the applicants relied upon food corporation of india v. evdomen corporation (1999)2 s.c.c. 466. this judgment is ..... of the small cause at madras, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees. the said clause 12 of letters patent stipulates that a place where the defendant or each of the defendants, in case there are more than one, at the commencement of the suit, carry on business would be ..... inapplicable to the high court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court is determined by clause 12 of the letters patent.clause 12 of letters patent runs as follows: original jurisdiction as to suits: and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at madras, in exercise of its ordinary original .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 11 2001 (HC)

V.C. Ramalingam and Sons, Represented by Its Partner V.R. Jagannathan, ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-11-2001

Reported in : [2002]127STC382(Mad)

..... preparations and therefore the classification was based on intelligible differentia, and thus valid. the apex court also pointed out that in the case of arya vaidya pharmacy, while all other patent or proprietory medicinal preparations belonging to different systems of medicines were taxed at 7% only without any classification, arishtams and asavas prepared under the ayurvedic system alone were made subject ..... in the medical literature and that the same was meant to be used under medical advice. affidavits had been produced in that case to show that the product is a patent and proprietary product and that chemists require a valid drug licence to buy, stock and sell the same and that it is sold to customers who come with a prescription .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2001 (HC)

United Labour Federation Vs. Union of India Represented by Its Secreta ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-2001

Reported in : (2002)1MLJ257

..... been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical and that the policy decision can be interfered with by the court only if such decision is shown to be patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. (g) in zippers karamchari union v. union of india and ors. , the supreme court was dealing with awarding of contract to one y.k.k .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 2001 (HC)

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

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-02-2001

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 14 2001 (HC)

The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Department of Sch ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-14-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Mad195

..... division bench in emmanuel teacher training institute case. 1997 wlr 129. according to the petitioners, the object of the act, guidelines provided by the council and other relevant considerations were patently ignored by the state government.great stress was laid on the observations made in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said decision.5. the learned single judge has accepted the ..... m/s. paul vasanthakumar, g. thilakavathy and subba reddy. generally, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents pointed out that the decision of the state government was in patent ignorance of thedivision bench judgment of this court in emmanuel's case, 1997 wlr 129. the learned counsel relied on the various provisions of the act and pointed out that .....

Tag this Judgment!


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