Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2002 Page 6 of about 74 results (0.098 seconds)

Dec 31 2002 (HC)

Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. the Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-31-2002

Reported in : (2003)181CTR(Mad)431; [2003]264ITR673(Mad)

..... development rebate (section 33(2)(ii); unabsorbed development allowance (section33a(2)(ii); unabsorbed amount of capital expenditure incurred on scientific research (section 35(2)(i); capital expenditure on acquisition of patent rights and copyrights (section 35a(1); unabsorbed amount of certain preliminary expenses which are amortisable against profits (section 35d(1); expenditure on prospecting for or development of specified minerals amortisable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2002 (HC)

South East Asia Marine Engineering and Construction Ltd. Vs. Oil Natur ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-31-2002

Reported in : (2003)1MLJ519

..... was done and partly outside at bombay where both the defendants are carrying on their usual business. in the circumstances leave is sought for under clause 12 of the letters patent.' according to the above averment the total liability on the part of the first respondent was ascertained. subsequently the quantum of amount was modified to rs. 2,75,38,710 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 26 2002 (HC)

Usv Limited Vs. Ipca Laboratories Limited

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-26-2002

Reported in : 2003(26)PTC21(Mad)

..... for the reputation of the make only the applicant is concerned with. in of the decisions reported in horlick's malted milk company v. sumerskill, 1916 the illustrated official journal (patents) supplement 1 and corn products refining co. v. shangrila food products ltd., , it was held that the reputation will attach only to trade mark of the goods purchased by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 07 2002 (HC)

Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. N. Rangaswamy

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-07-2002

Reported in : 2003(26)PTC405(Mad)

..... prime one. whether, it is copyrights act, which is attracted or the designs act and if copyrights act is attracted, will it subsist even to this date and whether the patent right claimed by the respondent is not a new innovation but has already been existings etc. are very intricate questions of fact which need to be proyed during trial of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Madura Mills Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-12-2002

Reported in : (2004)188CTR(Mad)66

..... of the act for the donation made in kind and the view of the tribunal holding that the assessee would be entitled to deduction of donations made in kind is patently erroneous in point of law. accordingly, the second question is also answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.4. however, there will be no order as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Union Co. (Motors) (P) Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-13-2002

Reported in : (2006)201CTR(Mad)549

..... . the view of the tribunal that the interest paid under the idbi deferred payment scheme is liable to be included as part of the actual cost of the asset is patently erroneous in view of the clear language of expln. 8 to section 43(1) of the act. hence, we answer the question of law referred to us in negative and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Coromandel Engg. Co. Ltd.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-11-2002

Reported in : [2002]123TAXMAN828(Mad)

..... could be given the benefit of investment allowance. in that case, the assessee was pressure piling co. and was in the business of laying foundations of buildings by a specialised patented method known as 'pressure piling'. the high court, after describing the process, came to the conclusion that having regard to the nature of the business of the assessee, the assessee .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 2002 (HC)

Cit Vs. Smt. R.G. Umaranee

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-06-2002

Reported in : [2003]127TAXMAN265(Mad)

..... referred the question that was also directed to be referred and re-framed by this court in t.c.p. no. 40 of 1995. since the order suffers from a patent mistake, which is apparent from the order of the income tax appellate tribunal, we are of the view that the following question of law should also be taken to have .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 31 2002 (HC)

Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. Cit

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-31-2002

Reported in : [2003]128TAXMAN880(Mad)

..... rebate (section 33(2)(ii)); unabsorbed development allowance [section 33a(2)(ii)]; unabsorbed amount of capital expenditure incurred on scientific research [section 35(2)(1)]; capital expenditure on acquisition of patent rights and copyrights [section 35a(1)]; unabsorbed amount of certain preliminary expenses which are amortisable against profits [section 35d(1)]; expenditure on prospecting for or development of specified minerals amortisable .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2002 (HC)

Nanjappan Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-28-2002

Reported in : II(2003)ACC642; 2004ACJ690; (2003)1MLJ187

r. jayasimha babu, j.1. the appellant was travelling in a goods vehicle on 15.09.1990 when on account of the rash and negligent driving of that vehicle by it's driver the vehicle dashed against another goods vehicle. the appellant sustained injuries in that accident. the tribunal awarded a compensation in the sum of rs.2,95,000/- with interest at 15%. the insurer appealed contending that in terms of the policy that had been issued on 05.12.1989, though that policy was issued after the date on which the motor vehicles act, 1988 had come into force, it's liability was limited only to rs.10,000/- as that was the figure mentioned in that policy. the learned single judge acceded to that argument of the insurer and limited it's liability to rs.10,000/-. he took the view that the liability does not arise under the statute, but under the contract of the insurance and therefore, the limitation provided in the contract would bind the insurer as also the claimant.2. section 147 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 sets out the requirements of the policy for complying with chapter xi of the act. section 146 sets out the necessity for the insurance against a third party risk. section 147(1)(b)(i) stipulates that the policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or persons specified in the policy against any liability which may be incurred by the insured in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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