Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: karnataka Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 31 results (0.006 seconds)

Aug 06 2004 (HC)

Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Educational Trust, by Its President and ors. Vs. ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-06-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Kant41; ILR2004KAR4584; 2004(7)KarLJ416

..... charge to meet the cost of a regulation that primarily benefits society.''fees must be paid to secure the enjoyment of a particular government service such as the provisions for patents, copyrights or the registration of mortgages, and the services of a court or a public official.'22. it is further held by the apex court that if the essential character .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 08 2004 (HC)

Jindal thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. Karnataka Power Transmission Cor ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Apr-08-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR3463; 2004(5)KarLJ161

..... categories namely, (i) where the tribunal acts in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon it under the statute or regulation creating it or where it ostensibly fails to exercise a patent jurisdiction; (ii) where there is an apparent error on the face of the decision and (iii) where the tribunal has erroneously applied well-accepted principles of jurisprudence. it is only ..... aforementioned two errors are corrected, the tariff would increase to rs. 2.54 per unit as per the commission's own calculations. it needs to be noticed that the above patent errors have neither being disputed nor adverted to by the respondents nor any clarifications have been provided by any of the respondents in the pleadings filed before the court or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2004 (HC)

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-07-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Kant50; ILR2005KAR1278; 2005(1)KarLJ118

..... specific relief sought for to strike down or declare them ultra vires, cannot confer any further sanctity or authority and validity which it is shown and found to obviously and patently lacking. [see bharathidasan university and anr. v. all india council for technical education and ors., air 2001 sc 2861 : (2001)8 scc 676. the power to frame rules is conferred .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 28 2004 (HC)

Ashok Kademani and anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Secretary, Departme ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Oct-28-2004

Reported in : AIR2005Kant124; 2005(2)KarLJ267

..... immovable property for the municipal council, in terms of land acquisition act, 1964 after payment by the municipal council of the compensation awarded under that act etc. this provision, quite patently, does not empower the state or its authorities to take over the borewell of the petitioners. the contention of the learned h.c.g.p. that the respondents no. 1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 12 2004 (HC)

Raghothaman and ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-12-2004

Reported in : 2004CriLJ1974; II(2004)DMC622; ILR2004KAR1322

..... down by the learned sessions judge. now, the petitioners have come up before this court seeking quashing of the proceedings.7. the material on record clearly goes to show that, patently, the 2nd respondent was married to one r. narayanaswamy as per hindu rites and customs on 26.6.1986. both the husband and wife have filed petition under section 13 ..... marriage between the parties for the purpose of invoking the provisions of section 498a or sections 3 and 4 of the dowry prohibition act.12. in the case on hand, patently, as on the date of marriage of the 2nd respondent with the first petitioner, the 2nd respondent had been legally wedded wife of one narayanaswamy and the said marriage was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 05 2004 (HC)

B. Sankappa Rai and ors. Vs. Central Registrar of Co-operative Societi ...

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-05-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR4298; 2004(7)KarLJ330

..... which require enquiry. the deletion of the names of the petitioners and similarly placed names from the voters list of the society is without authority of law and it is patently illegal. hence the decision of the supreme court reported in whirlpool corporation vs registrar of trade marks, mumbai, : air1999sc22 wherein the constitutional bench decision of the supreme court reported in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2004 (HC)

V. Shivananda Kumar Vs. Dr. S. Gurusiddappa

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Aug-03-2004

Reported in : ILR2004KAR4570; 2004(7)KarLJ376

..... and not at all based on any material available on record. hence, it cannot be maintained. so also, the order passed by the sessions judge, who failed to consider the patent error committed by the learned magistrate with perversity.in the result, the petition is allowed. the impugned order dated 18.12.1998 passed by the learned vii addl. c.m .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 2004 (HC)

Aeg Aktiengesllschaft Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-17-2004

Reported in : [2004]267ITR209(KAR); [2004]267ITR209(Karn)

..... of the act, the court took the view that in a contract for the design, manufacture, supply, erection and commissioning of the machinery which does not involve licence of the patent concerning the machinery, or a copyright of the design, mere supply of drawings before the manufacture is concerned to ensure that the buyer's requirements are fully taken care of ..... paid for construction/installation of kiln. hence, we are unable to say that the amount was paid for imparting any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property falling under clause (ii) of explanation 2 or for imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, commercial ..... court took the view that it was unable to take the view that the amount was paid for imparting any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property falling under clause (ii) of explanation 2 or for imparting of any information concerning technical, industrial, ..... consists of lump sum consideration for the transfer outside india of, or the imparting of information outside india in respect of, any data, documentation, drawing or specification relating to any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property, if such income is payable in pursuance of an agreement made before the 1st day of april .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 2004 (HC)

N. Sriraman Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-25-2004

Reported in : 2004(7)KarLJ152

..... arguable, the same on a prima facie examination of the matter fall short of creating an impression that the selection process will be an exercise in futility because of any patent illegality, bias or irregularity as alleged. even the allegations made by the applicants regarding the bias of the chairman of the selection committee and sri b.s. patil, the then ..... has the expertise on the subject. the court has not such expertise. the decision of the selection committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. it is not disputed that in the instant ..... only by the authority charged with the duty of making a selection. the decision of the authority or the committee is open to challenge only on the grounds or illegality, patent or material irregularity in the constitution of the committee or its procedure or proved mala fides affecting the selection. in dalpat abasaheb solunke's case, their lordships explained the role .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2004 (HC)

State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. Thirumala Distilleries

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Sep-23-2004

Reported in : 2004(6)KarLJ194

..... and ors. v. modi distillery and ors., : (1995)5scc753 ;7. deccan sugar and abkari company limited v. commissioner of excise, andhra pradesh, : (1998)3scc272 ;8. govindanaik g. kalaghatigi v. west patent press company limited and anr., : air1980kant92 (fb);9. state of mysore v. hosbu rush gowda, 1973(1) mys. l.j. 92;10. m. narasimhaiah v. deputy commissioner for transport, bangalore .....

Tag this Judgment!


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