Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: karnataka Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 27 results (0.006 seconds)

Mar 18 2002 (HC)

Prestige Housewares (India) Limited and anr. Vs. Prestige Estates and ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-18-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)KarLJ232

..... of the act is misconceived, arbitrary and illegal and unsustainable. the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition. the respondent has traversed averment made in the petition regarding patent and copyright owned by petitioners and has further emphatically denied that petitioners have been using work and trademark 'prestige' and that they enjoy great reputation and goodwill among traders and ..... proves that they are the authors of artistic work 'prestige' which was stylized and first used by petitioners in 1981 itself when the said artistic work was registered under the patents act in respect of various products manufactured and marketed by petitioners and the respondent has imitated and adapted the said artistic work which has created an impression that respondent is .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2002 (HC)

Prestige Housewares (India) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Prestige Estates and Pro ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-18-2002

Reported in : ILR2002KAR3258

..... of the act is misconceived, arbitrary and illegal and unsustainable. the petitioner has no locus stand to file the petition. the respondent has traversed averment made in the petition regarding patent and copyright owned by petitioners and has further emphatically denied that petitioners have been using work and trademark 'prestige' and that they enjoy great reputation and goodwill among traders and ..... proves that they are the authors of artistic work 'prestige' which was stylized and first used by petitioners in 1981 itself when the said artistic work was registered under the patents act in respect of various products manufactured and marketed by petitioners and the respondent has imitated and adopted the said artistic work which has created an impression that respondent is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 2002 (HC)

Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. Vs. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Dec-19-2002

Reported in : (2003)182CTR(Kar)23; [2003]264ITR142(KAR); [2003]264ITR142(Karn)

..... only 50 per cent depreciation on depreciable assets acquired by it.question no. (v)--whether the assessee was entitled to claim any deduction on the alleged expenditure of acquisition of patent rights, copyrights and knowhow in terms of sections 35a and 34ab of the act.20. in our judgment rendered in income-tax appeal in ita no. 134/2000 and connected ..... any know-how. it is further clear that in this case, there was no patent right to be acquired. 'patent' is defined under the patents act, 1970, according to which only inventions can be patented. beedi rolling or beedi manufacturing is not an invention which can be patented or create any patent right. further, expenses on trade mark is not covered either under section 35a or .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2002 (HC)

The Management of Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals Limited Vs. C.S. Moha ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-28-2002

Reported in : 2002(6)KarLJ125

..... in the present case is perfectly legal and valid and as the legal and valid enquiry has been set aside by the labour court on the two findings, which are patently illegal and perverse, the order of the labour court should be set aside'. 13. considering these differences, it was observed by this court that it was perfectly valid for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2002 (HC)

The Management of Siruguppa Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. C.S. Mohan a ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : May-28-2002

Reported in : ILR2003KAR2701

..... in the present case is perfectly legal and valid and as the legal and valid enquiry has been set aside by the labour court on the two findings, which are patently illegal and perverse, the order of the labour court should be set aside.' considering these differences, it was observed by this court that it was perfectly valid for the management .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 2002 (HC)

State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. M. Muniraju

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-25-2002

Reported in : AIR2002Kant287; ILR2002KAR2923; 2003(1)KarLJ291

..... by the courts below based on surmises and conjecture are perverse. further, it is held that if the findings are not based on legally acceptable evidence, or the findings are patently contrary to law as declared by supreme court, the same cannot have any immunity from interference within the hands of the appellate court in exercise of its second appellate power .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2002 (HC)

K.V. Rushyashringabhatta Vs. S.G. Nagendra and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-29-2002

Reported in : ILR2003KAR1643; 2003(1)KarLJ492

..... case of thomas antony v. varkey varkey, : air2000sc1 , has held that:'while making a reference to the tribunal mandatory the legislature cannot be said to have intended that even a patently frivolous, mala fide and illegal plea of tenancy taken by a party merely to delay the proceeding and to remain in possession of the property is also to be referred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2002 (HC)

Narasimhaiah Vs. State by Inspector of Police, H and B Squad, C.O.D., ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-08-2002

Reported in : 2002CriLJ4795; ILR2002KAR3157; 2002(2)KarLJ408

..... present case relating to the occurrence of death of nanjunda in police lockup and in that view of the law, the charge-sheet submitted by him under section 173 gets patently vitiated,16. mr. m. mahadevaiah, learned counsel for complainant, refuted the above contention of mr. c.v. nagesh arguing that the cod police being a part and parcel of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 12 2002 (HC)

A. Muniswamy and anr. Vs. Smt. Selvi

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-12-2002

Reported in : ILR2002KAR3227

..... under :'para 10 : in letters patent appeal, while granting leave to appeal, hegde, j., framed the following question :'where a compromise decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction contains a term which is opposed to ..... whether or not the decree is a nullity, where on the face of the decree it is apparent that the court passing the decree had no jurisdiction or there are patent reasons for doubting the inherent jurisdiction of the court.'27. in : air1986kant1 (s. g. thimmappa v. t. anantha and ors.) it is held at paras 10 and 18-a as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 11 2002 (HC)

H.S. Gangadhar Vs. the University of Agricultural Sciences, Rep. by It ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Nov-11-2002

..... . vasantha kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the selection committee without proper verification has acted on the basis of the information furnished by the third respondent which was patently incorrect and therefore they were misled in awarding higher marks to respondents 4 and 5. thus, the selection of respondents 4 and 5 is arbitrary and unreasonable. in so far .....

Tag this Judgment!


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