Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2006 Page 1 of about 65 results (0.051 seconds)

Jun 30 2006 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Jun-30-2006

Reported in : (2007)103ITD457(Chennai)

..... goodwill and the multinational company, i.e., bayer ag had no necessity to buy goodwill from the assessee. there is a clear distinction drawn between goodwill and trademarks, know-how, patents, copyrights, licenses, etc. it is therefore concluded that the position in law completely changed from the asst. yr. 1998-99 onwards and that the amendments to section 55(2) clearly ..... a consideration for the grant, the assessee was to pay 5 per cent royalty on the net selling price of all laminated products made and sold in accordance with those patented processes. when the total of the royalty payments reached 5,000, the assessee was no more liable to pay the royalty. the supreme court held that the payments made by ..... , would be of any help to the revenue on the facts of the present case. this court, the assessee entered into an agreement with an english company to use some patented process of manufacture. by that agreement, the english company granted to the assessee an exclusive non-assignable licence to manufacture laminates, in accordance with the processes covered by the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2006 (TRI)

Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Nov-17-2006

Reported in : (2007)107TTJ(Chennai)475

..... that the learned cit(a) has correctly confirmed the disallowance of depreciation. section 32 of the it act, 1961 which deals with allowance of depreciation reads as under: (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of april, 1998; owned, wholly or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 20 2006 (HC)

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd., Rep. by Its Chairman and Chief Executiv ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Mar-20-2006

Reported in : 2006(2)CTC97; (2006)2MLJ171

..... r. rajagopal v. m.p. chellamuthu and ors.) and : air1997sc113 (j.s. parihar v. ganpat duggar and ors.) and concluded that the letters patent appeal is maintainable.16. on going through the relevant provision, viz., section 19 of the contempts of courts act, the judgment of the supreme court ..... 15. aggrieved by the said directions, the respondent therein filed appeal in lpa. no. 18 of 2004, invoking clause 15 of the letters patent. a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent in the appeal regarding maintainability of the appeal. on behalf of the appellant it ..... in 2005 4 lw 398 (s. arumuganainar v. jeenath roadways), wherein the division bench considered an identical issue, contended that the present letters patent appeals are maintainable. in that case, the appellant awarded a contract to the respondent for a period of two years in respect of three ..... light of the above provisions, it is the claim of the shareholders welfare association that the present appeals, invoking clause 15 of the letters patent are not appropriate.13. mr. a.l. somayaji, learned senior counsel for the appellant bank by drawing our attention to the recent decision ..... raman andmrs. nalini chidambaram, leonard senior counsel for the respondents.9. at the foremost, an objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the letters patent appeals. according to the learned senior counsel for the respondents, inasmuch as the order under challenge was passed in a contempt petition filed under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 27 2006 (HC)

B. Mohamed Yousuff Vs. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh, Rep. by Its Power o ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-27-2006

Reported in : LC2007(1)107

..... by the supreme court that all decisions of the tribunals would be subject to scrutiny by the division bench of the high court, leaving no scope for invoking the letters patent for an intra court appeal. thus the distinction between the power under article 226 and the power under article 227 became insignificant, at least for an ordinary litigant, if not ..... gives ancillary directions which may pertain to article 227, this ought not to be held to deprive a party of the right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent where the substantial part of the order sought to be appealed against is under article 226. 20. the differences in jurisdiction between articles 226 and 227 are brought out by ..... . the power under article 227, being a revisional power, varies in its scope and ambit, than the power under article 226, which is original. moreover, the remedy of a letters patent appeal to the division bench of the high court, (wherever applicable) is available to a person aggrieved by an order passed by a single judge, in a writ petition under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 01 2006 (HC)

Dynasty Developers Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Jumbo World Holdings Ltd. an ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-01-2006

Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR9(Madras)

..... within the jurisdiction of this court, these applications could be filed before this court only after obtaining prior leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. it is an admitted fact that no leave was obtained prior to filing of the above applications. therefore, these applications are liable to be ..... chapter ii of the act.38. relying on this passage, the learned senior counsel for the applicant contended that even if clause 12 of letters patent will apply to section 9 application, the practice of this court is not insisting on filing an application for obtaining leave under clause 12 and, ..... not deal with the maintainability of an application under section 9 of the act, 1996 when no leave is obtained under clause 12 of letters patent. further, the counsel for the parties before the supreme court agreed that de hors the issue of maintainability, the court may proceed to determine the ..... and not the principal city civil court. sundaram finance limited v. m.k. kurian and anr. : air2006mad218 .24. clause 12 of the letters patent deals with the territorial jurisdiction or the original jurisdiction of this court which reads as under:12. original jurisdiction as to suits-and we do further ..... act, 1996 ?(b) if yes, whether these applications are liable to be dismissed as no prior leave was obtained under clause 12 of the letters patent ?(c) whether the interim orders already granted are to be continued till the termination of the proceedings pending before the arbitral tribunal ?20. elaborate .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 2006 (TRI)

Ontrack Systems Ltd. Vs. the Asst. Commissioner of I.T.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chennai

Decided on : Oct-13-2006

Reported in : (2007)108ITD279(Chennai)

..... exchange. this is an incentive given for encouraging research and development activity in india. what is essential is to have appropriate right over such patent invention, design, registered trade mark etc, it is a fact that the asessee is not the owner of the website but it is done on ..... includes [any income received by the assessee from the government of a foreign state or foreign enterprise in consideration for the use outside india of any patent, invention, design or registered trade mark] [and such income is received in convertible foreign exchange in india, or having been received in convertible foreign exchange ..... id. counsel for the assessee argued that the assessee is engaged in the business of computer maintenance and services and deduction is allowable in respect of patent, design, invention and registered trade mark as prescribed under section 80-o of the act. the id. counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention ..... respect of royalties etc., received from certain foreign enterprises are allowed as deduction if it is earned on account of designing, patent or trade mark. this indicates that what is contemplated for deduction is royalties received or similar payments in that nature for use of any ..... patent, technical know-how and trade mark, invention, design by any foreign enterprise or person and its uses abroad they earning roreign .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2006 (HC)

V. Selladurai, S/O. Veerapan Vs. N. Nethaji, S/O. Natesan and Thanthi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-05-2006

Reported in : (2006)4MLJ680

..... decision reported in 1992 1 l.w.441 (m. venkataswamy v. mardapushpam and 4 ors.), the division bench observed:12. clause 12 of the letters patent which applies to this court on its original side inter alia states that if the 'defendant' at the time of the commencement of the suit shall ..... 1922 m.w.n. 641in which a broad reference has been made to what may be found in the four corners of clause 12 of the letters patent of this court.the division bench thereafter referred to the decision of calcutta high court reported in : air1960cal123 (bengal a.s.y. corporation v. ..... 19 may not be applicable. on the other hand, section 20(b) may be applicable. while interpreting the provisions contained in clause 12 of the letters patent, similar interpretations should be given. in other words, the expression 'defendant' should be interpreted to mean all the defendants and not any one of the defendants ..... of the property sued for does not exceed hundred rupees. 10. it is convenient to analyse the provisions contained in clause 12 of the letters patent first. such clause empowers the madras high court to decide the suits for land or other immovable property if such land or property is situated within ..... jurisdiction of another court, the suit may be instituted at the option of the plaintiff in either of the said courts. clause 12 of the letters patent, 1865 is extracted hereunder:12. original jurisdiction as to suits - and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at madras, in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2006 (HC)

Sundaram Finance Limited Rep. by the Assistant Manager (Legal) Vs. M.K ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-21-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Mad218; 2006(1)ARBLR548(Madras); 2006(1)CTC433; (2006)1MLJ506

..... the civil court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction having power to deal with the matters involving the value of less than rs. 10 lakhs, whereas under clause 12 of the letters patent, the high court has unlimited original jurisdiction and this jurisdiction was expressly saved under section 16 of the chennai city civil court act. competency embodied by this section is pecuniary ..... short) where the value of the subject matter is less than rs. 10 lakhs. the question is, whether the madras high court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction under the letters patent or the principal judge of the city civil court constituted under the chennai city civil court act, 1892, will exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters under the act involving the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2006 (HC)

R. Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal, Editor, Printer and Publ ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-01-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Mad142; 2006(2)CTC353; (2006)2MLJ456

..... challappan and ors.) and has contended that even though ordinarily an ex parte order of ad-interim injunction may not be appealable either under the letters patent or under order 43 rule 3 cpc, if such matter is not decided within the time stipulated by the legislature and there is a transgression of ..... us would constitute sufficient guidelines to determine whether or not an order passed by the trial judge is a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent. we must however hasten to add that instances given by us are illustrative and not exhaustive. we have already referred to the various tests laid ..... not being a step towards judgment) but is designed to render the judgment effective can also be termed as judgment within the meaning of the letters patent. so far as this test is concerned, the learned chief justice had in mind orders passed by the trial judge granting or refusing ad interim ..... nothing more than a step towards obtaining a final adjudication in the suit is not, in my opinion, a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent.11. the supreme court proceeded to observe :91. analysing the observations of the learned chief justice it would appear that he has laid down the ..... not apply to internal appeals within the high court.(2) that even if it be assumed that order 43 rule 1 does not apply to letters patent appeals, the principles governing these provisions would apply by process of analogy.(3) that having regard to the nature of the orders contemplated in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2006 (HC)

Andhra Bank Financial Services Limited, Rep. by Its Managing Director ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-20-2006

Reported in : AIR2006Mad276; (2006)4MLJ392

..... the madras high court did not have jurisdiction to deal with the suit in the absence of any leave as contemplated under clause 12 of the letters patent. obviously the court cannot countenance such a contention which, would give rise to two inconsistent conclusions. therefore, the contention of the appellant, so far as ..... court in its original side lacked jurisdiction to deal with the suit in the absence of any leave as contemplated under clause 12 of the letters patent, the resultant conclusion is likely to give rise to two inconsistent decisions. the major portion of the liability is not in dispute. if the jurisdiction ..... in the absence of leave as contemplated under clause 12, the suit is not maintainable.13. clause 12 of the letters patent is to the following effect:12. original jurisdiction as to suits - and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at madras, ..... therefore, the question of jurisdiction will have to be gone into.12. it is therefore submitted by him relying upon clause 12 of the letters patent that since the defendant was not actually residing within the original jurisdiction of the madras high court at the time of actual institution of the suit, ..... no leave of the court had been obtained as required under order iii rule 1 of the original side rules and clause 12 of the letters patent, the suit was not maintainable on the file of this court. regarding interest it was stated that the payments made by the defendant has to .....

Tag this Judgment!


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