Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1968 Page 1 of about 19 results (0.006 seconds)

Oct 03 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat Ii Vs. Alembic Glass Industries Lt ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-03-1968

Reported in : [1969]71ITR752(Guj)

..... that account a mere licensee for a limited period of the technical knowledge of the swiss company with the right to use the patents and trade marks of that company. the assessee acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw, for the purpose of carrying on its business as manufacturer and dealer of ..... contribution was allowable as business expenditure under section 10(2)(xv). the assessee did not under the agreement become entitled exclusively, even for the period of the agreement, to the patents and trade marks of the swiss company; it had merely access to the technical knowledge and experience in the pharmaceutical filed which the swiss company commanded. the assessee was on ..... or drafts, which might be useful to introduce licensed preparations and to promote their sale in india. it granted to the assessee full and sole right and licence under the patents listed in the agreement to make use, exercise and vend the inventions specified therein in india and also a licence to certain specified trade marks in the territory subject to ..... ) without the written consent of the swiss company, not to assign the benefit of the agreement or grant sub-licences of the patents and trade marks; and (c) upon termination of the agreement for any cause to use the patents and trade marks and to return to the swiss company all copies of information, scientific data or material sent to it and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1968 (HC)

Patel Ratnabhai Ukabhai Vs. Rupjibhai Fuljibhai Valvi and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Mar-26-1968

Reported in : (1968)9GLR847

..... civil judge in the present case had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for challenging the validity of co-optation of the petitioner and since the absence of jurisdiction is patent, a writ of prohibition must go against the learned civil judge. we accordingly allow the petition and make the rule absolute by issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the learned ..... this court. there is, therefore, no irresistible reason why we should withhold a writ of prohibition in the present case if the petitioner is able to show that there was patent lack of jurisdiction in the learned civil judge to entertain the application challenging the co-optation of the petitioner as a member of the nizar taluka panchayat.2.1 turning ..... almost as a matter of course unless any irresistible case for withholding it is made out. if, therefore, there is patent lack of jurisdiction in the learned civil judge to entertain the application challenging the validity of co-optation of the petitioner, which would be so if the contention of the ..... . desai c.j. and myself in chamanlal a. patel v. the state of gujarat i.g.l.r. 260 and we pointed out in that case that where there is patent lack of jurisdiction and the court is immediately satisfied that the inferior court or authority has exceeded its jurisdiction, the court will very readily interpose and the writ would go .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1968 (HC)

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vs. Anil Co-operative Cr ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-11-1968

Reported in : [1969]24STC180(Guj)

..... therefore non est. there being a difference of opinion between the two learned judges the reference has come before me as a third judge under clause 36 of the letters patent. 80. the main controversy between the parties centres round the first question as to whether the assessee running the canteen without the element of profit-motive could be said to ..... accordingly. 77. in view of the difference of opinion between the two learned judges, the case came on for hearing before bhagwati, c.j., under clause 36 of the letters patent and the learned chief justice delivered the following judgment on 11th november, 1968. bhagwati, c.j. 78. this reference comes before me on a difference of opinion between divan, j ..... . c. - in view of the difference of opinion on the points which clearly emerge from our respective judgments, the case should now be placed under clause 36 of the letters patent of this high court before one or more of the other judges and the points should be got decided as laid down in that clause. mehta, j. 51. with great .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 12 1968 (HC)

State of Gujarat Vs. Shah Veljibhai Motichand, Lunawada

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-12-1968

Reported in : [1969]23STC288(Guj)

..... .c. in view of the difference of opinion on the points which clearly emerge from our respective judgments, the case should now be placed under clause 36 of the letters patent of this high court before one or more of the other judges and the points should be got decided as laid down in that clause. 33. in pursuance of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 1968 (HC)

State of Gujarat Vs. Mukhi Stores

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-11-1968

Reported in : [1969]23STC334(Guj)

..... .c. in view of the difference of opinion on the points which clearly emerges from our respective judgments, the case should now be placed under clause 36 of the letters patent of this high court before one or more of the other judges and the points should be got decided as laid down in that clause. 29. in pursuance of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 21 1968 (HC)

Satubha K. Vaghela Vs. Moosa Raza, the District Development Officer

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-21-1968

Reported in : (1969)10GLR23

..... conclusion of the competent authority that the sarpanch had in this case no power whatever to dismiss the servants is the right conclusion and it could not be attacked as patently erroneous. mr. vyas tried to argue that the other chairman of the three committees and some members present had authorised the sarpanch to hold the proceedings for inquiry. if the ..... removing the petitioner was wholly justified. therefore, the fifth ground urged by mr. vyas must also fail and the conclusion of the competent authority could not be held to be patently erroneous and on fact we are agreeing with the said conclusion as the right conclusion in the circumstances.11. turning now to the last ground of mr. vyas it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 18 1968 (HC)

Manhorlal Manilal Shah Vs. Official Liquidator and anr.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jun-18-1968

Reported in : (1969)10GLR180

..... the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. now, appeals against orders made by a single judge of this court in its ordinary jurisdiction are governed by clause 15 of the letters patent and it is well settled that an appeal under clause 15 lies only at the instance of a party to the proceeding who is adversely affected by an order made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 1968 (HC)

Thakkar Vithalbhai Hargovind and anr. Vs. Kachhia Jagjivan Motilal (De ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-24-1968

Reported in : (1969)10GLR288

..... shah has contended before us that we should not award costs against his client because the letters patent appeal is being allowed by reference to a supreme court judgment which was not cited before his lordship at the time of hearing of the second appeal ..... view of this weighty pronouncement contained in the judgment of the supreme court.30. the result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that the present letters patent appeal must be allowed and the suit of the plaintiff will have to be dismissed.31. this brings us to the question of the costs. mr. ..... come to a different conclusion. his lordship had not the benefit of the supreme court judgment. at the time of the hearing of the letters patent appeal we had the benefit of the judgment of the supreme court and we have considered several other aspects of the question and after considering the true ..... of the plaintiff was barred on the original cause of action because of the award. mr. justice patel who delivered the judgment in the letters patent appeal has observed after considering the scheme of the act as follows:these sections do not by express language or by implication provide that a suit ..... defendants could not validly plead the maintainability of the suit. it is the correctness of this view which is challenged before us in the present letters patent appeal. we might mention that this was the only point decided by our learned brother in the second appeal. it was held in the second .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1968 (HC)

New Saurashtra Vanaspati Co., Morvi Vs. B.A. Maharaja, Sales Tax Offic ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-11-1968

Reported in : [1969]24STC92(Guj)

..... act so that the taxpayer must be left to his ordinary remedy under the taxing statute. the case is clearly one of total lack of jurisdiction and also of a patent error of law and this court would have the power and duty to interfere in such cases and grant relief to the citizen. 12. in the result this petition must ..... the transfer or disposal or change of ownership effected by the predecessor-dealer liable to pay tax, viz., the c.s.a. the order of the taxing authority is, therefore, patently erroneous. the order could also be said to be completely lacking jurisdiction. the taxing authority could tax persons other than dealers by applying the extended provisions in section 19(4 ..... on a complete misconception of law. the conclusion of the authority would not be warranted, if the authority had properly understood the relevant enactment. such an order would disclose a patent error of law. in provincial transport services v. state industrial court, (a.i.r. 1963 s.c. 114) it has been held by the supreme court at page 117 as ..... of his order. the petitioner-firm has filed a rejoinder. 3. at the hearing mr. kaji argued that the impugned order of the respondent is completely without jurisdiction and is patently erroneous in law, as it proceeds on a complete misconception of law and seeks to recover tax dues of the former dealer from the petitioner-firm in flagrant violation of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1968 (HC)

Bai Galal Ramshi Vs. Vrajlal Ichhashanker and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-05-1968

Reported in : AIR1969Guj159; (1969)GLR561

..... trial court that there was a bar of section 80 to the present amendment was not warranted, if it had properly understood the relevant enactment and if it was this patently wrong view of law, which prevented it from entertaining the plaintiff's claim, the error was clearly one of jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone which could be corrected under section 115 ..... mr. parikh also invited my attention to the case of ishwarlal v. state of maharashtra : (1966)7glr589 . mehta j. has made the following observations:'if the subordinate court on a patently wrong view or missing relevant considerations or on grounds not open to it holds a bar to exist when there was no bar to the trial of the suit, the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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