Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: gujarat Year: 1979 Page 1 of about 31 results (0.031 seconds)

Feb 28 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat-iv Vs. Jyoti Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Feb-28-1979

Reported in : [1979]118ITR499(Guj)

..... ltd. : [1968]69itr692(sc) , the supreme court pointed out that where 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 and had merely access to the technical knowledge and experience in the pharmaceutical field which the swiss company commanded and where the assessee ..... was 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 could be said to have acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw, for the purpose of carrying on the business .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 15 1979 (HC)

Babubhai and ors. Vs. Shah Bharatkumnr Ratilal and ors. Etc.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-15-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Guj89; (1980)1GLR103

..... act 1812 (c. 1011 'any two or more persons' to present a petition meant persons having an interest (re bedford charity 2 swanst 518); see r. v. comtvtroller general of patents (1899) 1 qb 909).' if the connotation of word 'anv' defles limitation or qualification unless its generality is restricted bf the subject matter or the context, its import would be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1979 (HC)

Lilavatiben Harjivandas Kotecha Vs. J.V. Shah, Income-tax Officer, War ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-29-1979

Reported in : [1980]122ITR863(Guj)

..... '. in t. s. balaram v. volkart brothers : [1971]82itr50(sc) , the supreme court held that a mistake apparent on the record or from the record must be an obvious an patent mistake and not some-thing which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there might conceivably be two opinions. a decision on a ..... of the relevant provisions of the act in a proceeding under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961, a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions, as seen earlier, the high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1979 (HC)

Dr. B.R. Kulkarni Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Nov-14-1979

Reported in : (1979)2GLR437

..... commission ordinarily takes its own, decision, which is within its rights and which is its responsibility. except in the rare cases of gross mala fides or in the case of patent acts of bias or partiality, going to the root of the edifice of upright administration of the process of selection in consonance with justice and rule of law, this court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1979 (HC)

Surgichem Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-04-1979

Reported in : 1990(26)LC305(Gujarat)

..... any other provision of the central excise rules as mr. vakil would like us to do. if the petiuoner had failed to point out any. patent or jurisdictional error committed by the central government, which as the revisional authority, was exercising quasi-judicial powers, the petition would have failed. but if ..... . thus, in substance, the petitioner invokes certiorari jurisdiction of this court. if we find the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error, or any patent error of law, or is in breach of principles of natural justice, such an order passed by the central government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction ..... as aforesaid.8. under the circumstances we are concerned in the present petition with the sole contention that the revisional order at annexure d suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be quashed. mr. nanavati's submission on this aspect has three limbs. the first limb of mr. ..... but had confirmed the adjudication order passed by the departmental authorities on the basis of rule 9(2), the order of the central government was patently bad in law and hence it was liable to be quashed.7. after addressing us for some lime on all the aforesaid three points, mr ..... on the other hand, any patent error of law or jurisdictional error is pointed out, the order of revisional authority would be illegal and void. as held by the supreme court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 1979 (HC)

Surgichem by Its Partner, Natverlal P. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Oct-04-1979

Reported in : 1980CENCUS1D

..... any other provision of the central excise rules as mr. vakil would like us to do. if the petitioner had failed to point out any patent or juridictional error committed by the central government, which as the revisional authority, was exercising quasi-judicial powers, the petition would have failed. but if ..... , in substance, the petitioner invokes certiorari jurisdiction of this court. it we find the the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional error, or any patent error of law, or is in breach of principles of natural justice, such an order passed by the central government in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction ..... him as aforesaid.8. under the circumstances we are concerned in the present petition with the sole contention that the revisional order atannexure d suffers from patent error of law and is liable to be quashed. mr. nanavati's submission on this aspect has three limbs. the first limb of mr. ..... but had confirmed the adjudication order passed by the departmental authorities on the basis of rule 9 (2), the order of the central government was patently bad in law and hence it was liable to be quashed.7. after addressing us for some time on all the aforesaid three points, mr. ..... on the other hand, any patent error of law or jurisdictional error is pointed out, the order of revisional authority would be illegal and void. as held by the supreme court .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 1979 (HC)

Shirazbhai G. Munshi Vs. Ramjuji Gabharuji

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Sep-17-1979

Reported in : (1979)2GLR254

..... or without conditions.... it is the first proviso which really causes some anxiety, whether it has got any bearing on the main enactment contained in sub-rule (5). it is patent on the face of the proviso that it is couched in double negative. the said proviso prescribes that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the court is satisfied ..... where there is a substantial or a good defence, the court must grant, as a matter of course, leave to defend the suit. in a case where the defence is patently frivolous or vexatious and the court is satisfied about it, it would refuse to grant leave. the role of the court becomes difficult only in those cases where there is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1979 (HC)

State of Gujarat and ors. Vs. Pethalji Nathabhai Chawda

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-02-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Guj139; (1979)2GLR1

..... to be bad.5. we regret that we cannot agree with the reasoning of our learned brother and have to arrive at a different conclusion. we therefore allow this letters patent appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by our learned brother a. d. desai j. the special civil application fails and is dismissed. the original petitioner will pay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 27 1979 (HC)

Suleman Isubji Dadabhai Vs. Naranbhai Dahyabhai Patel and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jul-27-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Guj165; (1980)0GLR232

..... public trust dadabhai' trust - and that they continued to be the private property of the appellant.3. it is that order which is challenged by the appellant in this letters patent appeal.4. mrs. mehta who appears on behalf of the appellant has raised before us the following contentions:(i) the deed of settlement executed by the appellant on 31st december .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 1979 (HC)

Indian Overseas Bank, Madras and anr. Vs. Naranprasad Govindlal Patel

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Aug-03-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Guj158; (1980)0GLR132

..... merits of the case, upheld the conclusion recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. r is that appellate decree, which is challenged by the bank in this letters patent appeal.5. mr. chhatrapati who appears on behalf of the bank has raised before us several arguments. his first argument is that the plaintiff has proved a case, which it .....

Tag this Judgment!


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