Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Page 12 of about 3,457 results (0.010 seconds)

Aug 12 2003 (TRI)

Vinod Kothari Consultants (P) Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Reported in : (2004)84TTJ(Kol.)1058

..... possession of which is a condition precedent for the running of the business, then it would be expenditure of a revenue nature. (4) special knowledge, or technical knowledge, or a patent, or a trade mark, is an asset and if it is acquired for payment for use and exploitation for a limited, period, and what is acquired is not an asset ..... an enduring nature and at the end of the agreed period that advantage or asset reverts back intact to the giver of that special knowledge or the owner of the patents or trade marks, it would be expenditure of a revenue nature. (5) if it is intrinsically a capital asset, it is immaterial whether the price for it is paid once .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 2017 (HC)

Saraf Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Federal Agencies for State Prope ...

Court : Kolkata

..... be taken away only by a subsequent enactment, if it so provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise. in glaxo smith kline plc and ors.v.controller of patents and designs and ors.reported in (2008) 17 scc416mr.justice arijit pasayat remarked in paragraph 7 of the judgement that when the right of appeal was preserved by the amendment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 18 1952 (HC)

Calcutta Motor Cycle Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1953Cal1

..... its own courts when the cause of action arises either in contract or tort against a state railway. secondly, that part of clause 12, letters patent of this high court where the words 'the defendant resides or carries on business' appear cannot contextually and historically be applied to the state. it ..... can avoid that conclusion, if it is to be held that the state carries on business within the meaning of clause 12 of the letters patent. the ubiquity of the state within its own borders and its territorial omnipresence throughout the country justify the principle being pushed to its logical extreme ..... times, i do not think there is any question whatever that a 'carrying business,' is 'business' within the meaning of section 12 of the letters patent, nor is there any doubt that a hallway company or other corporate body, or even a body of individuals whether incorporated or not, is a 'person ..... for gain within such limits.' does the state, the union of india in this case, 'carry on business' within the meaning of the letters patents when it owns and manages a railway concent or a railway undertaking ?7. another incidental controversy is, even if the state runs a railway and is said ..... the first time that such an issue has been raised.6. the preliminary controversy technically arises on the celebrated words in clause 12 of the letters patent of this high court,--'if the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit shall dwell, or carry on business, or personally work .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 29 1940 (PC)

Sri Narayan and anr. Vs. Mohammad Abu Saleh

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1940Cal351

..... , it is not necessary that the mark in question should be the exclusive property of anybody. whatever may be the law with regard to such matters as copy right or patents, there can be no question that the only consideration which is of importance i with reference to the provisions of section 486 is whether the mark in question has come .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 13 1968 (HC)

Ramji Dayawahla and Sons Private Ltd. Vs. Invest Import

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1969Cal253,73CWN533

..... the controversy raised before the high court is over or not. clearly, therefore, this decision appears to have been impliedly overruled.3. farbenfebriken bayer aktiengessell-schaft v. joint controller of patents & designs, : air1963cal433 : the patentee's application to go up to the supreme court, from an appellate decision of this court, fails on two grounds. first, this court, hearing appeals against ..... a final order too, must rank as an obiter dictum, the matter having not been examined in the light of authorities, as it would have been, but for the two 'patent objections', and others too, to such a misconceived application.25. in the result, the application succeeds and be allowed in terms of prayers (a) to (f) thereof, save that prayers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 1979 (HC)

Euresian Equipments and Chemicals Ltd. and ors. Vs. the Collector of C ...

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1980Cal188,1979(2)CHN248,1980(6)ELT38(Cal)

..... human, animal or plant life or health; (l) the protection of national treasures of artistic, historic or archaeological value; (m) the conservation of exhaustible natural resources; (n) the protection of patents, trade marks and copy-rights; (o) the prevention of deceptive practices; (p) the carrying on of foreign trade in any goods by the state, or by a corporation owned or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 27 1998 (HC)

Food Corporation of India Vs. Williamson Magor and Co. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1999)1CALLT331(HC),1999(1)CHN220

..... course, single and exclusive; but occupation may be shared with others or had on behalf of others.'see willis' case, 1965) 1q.b.140 at 148, referring also to hills(patents), 1956) 1q.b-90 at 99 (lines 5 to 7).37. our section uses both the words, possession and occupation. possession is a more formal legal word than occupation. the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 1906 (PC)

Royzuddi Sheik Vs. Kali Nath Mookerjee

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1906)ILR33Cal985

..... beav. 153, ross v. army and navy hotel co. (1886) 31 ch d. 43, in re queensland land of coal co. (1891) 3 ch 181, and in re johnston foreign patents co. (1904) 2 ch. 234, show that a security, though defective as a legal mortgage, may be enforceable in equity, if it shows an intention to create a charge. this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 21 1983 (HC)

W.H. Targett and Co. Ltd. Vs. Wall Street Investment P. Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : [1986]59CompCas335(Cal)

..... ) to deal in real and personal property and rights of all kinds, and in particular, lands, buildings, hereditaments, businesses, concerns and undertakings, debenture-stocks, mortgages, debentures, produce, concessions, options, contracts, patents, annuities, licences, privileges and choices in action of all kinds, including any interest in real or personal property.' 8. he also referred to section 23 of the monopolies and restrictive .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1954 (HC)

Achut Anant Pai Vs. Governor General-in-council

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1955Cal331

..... the supreme court held that an order of transfer under clause 13 does not involve any adjudication. it is not a 'judgment' under clause 15, letters patent and is not appealable.27. in the circumstances i fail to see how can an order of transfer under clause 13 be said to adjudicate on the question ..... which had jurisdiction to try such suit, and further it is a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of transfer under clause 13, letters patent that the court in which the suit is originally filed has jurisdiction to entertain and try such suit. so when the order for transfer of the present ..... . it has also been contended by mr. a. c. mitra the learned counsel for the plaintiff with reference to the wordings of clause 13, letters patent that clause 13 presupposes that a suit which is sought to be removed or transferred to this court from a court subordinate to the high court was a ..... cases of the calcutta high court and other high courts which also have held that there may be waiver of objection to jurisdiction in cases instituted under clause 12, letters patent. see -- 'a. j. king v. secretary of state', 35 cal 394 (m); -- 'saraswati v. biraj mohini', 17 cal wn 512 (n); -- 'shama kanta v. ..... of filing its written statement.(ii) in june 1945, the plaintiff applied to this court for transfer of the suit under clause 13 of the letters patent and a copy of the plaint was annexed to the petition. the defendant did not file any affidavit in opposition nor did it appear at the hearing .....

Tag this Judgment!


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