Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Year: 1982 Page 1 of about 33 results (0.010 seconds)

Aug 16 1982 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Stanton and Stavely (Overseas) Ltd.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-16-1982

Reported in : (1983)36CTR(Cal)224,[1984]146ITR405(Cal)

..... but also undertakes to supply the licensee with technical 'know how', that is to say, information from his own experience on the most efficient and economical way of working the patent. it is estimated that more than 50% of licence contracts include ' know-how ' provisions.when applied to industrial designs, the meaning of the word 'royalty' is roughly the same ..... the view that the agreement could be actually termed as a collaboration agreement by virtue of which the non-resident assessee-company had allowed the indian company to use its patents, privileges, technical information, etc., for a limited period and at a price. the non-resident company had placed at the disposal of the indian company its services through its ..... consideration thereof certain payments to be made as noted hereinbefore, is as follows:'if during the continuance of this agreement either party shall make, discover or acquire any further invention, patent, process or design in connection with or improvements upon or addition to the methods of manufacturing stanton products or any modifications of or developments in machinery or apparatus used in ..... of the drawings and specifications mentioned in the agreement and for obtaining further information and advice from stanton and for obtaining from stanton a licence or licences under certain letters patent of stanton and the consent of stanton to the use of stanton's processes in the manufacture of contrifugally cast iron pipes and joints for use therewith and to use .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1982 (HC)

Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-13-1982

Reported in : (1982)30CTR(Cal)363,[1983]144ITR474(Cal)

..... incurred prior to such grant or disclosure or governmental law or order. kaiser represents, however, that it and its affiliated companies are not now prohibited or prevented from licensing any patents which they now have which pertain to the alumina and aluminium reduction plants to be built as the first step and kaiser and its affiliated companies are not prohibited or ..... of india or elsewhere. clauses 10 and 11 were as under :'10. it is understood by hindustan that nothing herein shall be deemed to require kaiser to grant hindustan any patent or other rights or disclose to hindustan any information in regard thereto if kaiser or its affiliated companies do not have the right or power to grant such rights or ..... prevented from disclosing technical advice now available to them which is essential to said plants. except with respect to the licence of existing patents of kaiser relating to the alumina process and the aluminium reduction process, kaiser makes no representation or warranty that the use of any technical information or advice or ..... patent licence now or hereafter disclosed or granted, as the case may be, can be used without patent infringement. 11. in consideration of the premises and in addition to the reimbursement of expenses as hereinbefore provided hindustan shall immediately on .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 1982 (HC)

Sukhamoy Roy Vs. Salilananda Basak and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-16-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Cal83,86CWN1025

..... court in the case of nirsan singh v. kishuni singh, air 1931 pat 204 (2). this decision of our learned brother is now being challenged before us in this letters patent appeal.8. mr. ghosh appearing in support of this appeal, has seriously contended that our learned brother had failed to appreciate correctly the principles enunciated by the full bench in ..... sen, j.1. this is an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent by the tenant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as defendant) and it arises out of a suit for eviction which has been concurrently decreed by the three courts below. the only .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 1982 (HC)

Biswanath Charit Vs. Damodar Patra and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-03-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Cal199,86CWN423

..... the second appeal was dismissed by the learned single judge. feeling aggrieved the defendant no. 8 has preferred this appeal after having obtained leave under clause 15 of the letters patent from the learned single judge.8. mr. banerjee appearing in support of this appeal has fairly conceded that onthe terms of the agreement he cannot dispute the finding of the ..... anil k. sen, j.1. this is an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent directed against a judgment and decree dated july, 13, 1971, passed by a learned single judge of this court in an appeal from appellate decree no. 38 of 1964. defendant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 1982 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Ganpatrai Sagarmull and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-26-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Cal14

..... clause 12 has been impliedly repealed by section 8033. we are, therefore, of the view that the jurisdiction conferred by clause 12 of the letters patent has not been affected by section 80 of the railways act but section 80 only provides for additional forum for filing of the suits of the ..... with which we are concerned in this appeal viz., whether section 80 affects the jurisdiction of this court as conferred by clause 12 of the letters patent. the division bench dismissed the appeal on the ground that no part of the cause of action in that case arose within the original civil jurisdiction ..... railway. further, section 80 of the railways act, has not in any way, affected the original jurisdiction of this court conferred by clause 12 of the letters patent.17. as stated earlier mainly relying on the decision of the supreme court in the case of morvi mercantile bank v. union of india : [1965]3scr254 ..... (ii) whether section 80 of the railways act in any way affected the original side jurisdiction of this court conferred by clause 12 of the letters patent.11. on the question as to whether any part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court the learned trial judge ..... cause of action had arisen within the original jurisdiction of this high court and as the suit was filed with leave under clause 12 of the letters patent it was maintainable.10. regarding the question as to whether this court had jurisdiction to try the suit, two questions came up for consideration i.e .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 25 1982 (HC)

Ritu Sachdev Vs. Anita Jindal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-25-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Cal329

..... jurisdiction, the same could not be joined along with the property within the jurisdiction and on that basis leave under clause 12 of the letters patent was revoked.12. in the instant case, the appellant in her application made in the court of the first instance, apart from amendment of the ..... with such question of procedure and the jurisdiction is an appealable order and it is a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.11. in the case of ranjit pal chowdhury v. murari mohan pal chowdhury : air1958cal710 relying on the earlier decisions it was observed as follows:--' ..... jugraj, : air1963cal337 it was submitted that inasmuch as in the instant case the appellant has prayed for fresh leave under clause 12 of the letters patent the impugned order is appealable, mr. gupta has further submitted that the plaintiff has challenged the deed of dissolution dated april 1, 1978 and if ..... anita jindal (defendant no. 1' in the said suit) made an application, inter alia, for revocation of leava granted under clause 12 of the letters patent to institute the said suit. thereafter, on or about 18th feb., 1980 the appellant made the application out of which tha present appeal has arisen. in ..... the said suit') and for addition of party. in the said application the appellant also prayed for fresh leave under clause 12 of the letters patent against the added defendant.2. the appellant as the plaintiff in the court of the first instance filed the said suit for partition and declaration of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1982 (HC)

Prahladrai Agarwalla and ors. Vs. Sm. Renuka Pal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-15-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Cal259

..... to the appealability of the order would remain the same. the order would be appealable only if it was a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent, which, as has been noted earlier, it is not.23. we are, therefore, of opinion that the order under appeal is not appealable and this appeal is, therefore, not maintainable ..... to urge in the suit at the hearing. in that view of the matter the order under appeal is not, in our opinion, appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent. an application for trial of issues could be made only after written statement has been filed by the defendant and thereupon issues have been settled. that is not the case ..... clauses thereof is clearly not appealable as will appear from order 43 rule 1,22. an order to be a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent must be a decision affecting the merits of the disputes between the parties by determining some right or liability although it might be either final or preliminary or interlocutory. the ..... 7 rule 11 refusing to reject a plaint and dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint was not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. such order did not determine any part of the suit. in support of his contention mr. chakraburtty cited the following decisions.1. shanti kumar r. kanji v. home insurance co .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 21 1982 (HC)

Bijoli Grill Spencer's Product Vs. Spencers and Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-21-1982

Reported in : AIR1983Cal175

..... directed to be wound up and the official liquidator was appointed liquidator. thereafter, since 1975 all the associated trade marks registered by the defendant no. 2 being associated with the patent mark no. 6108 were removed from the register due to non-renewal thereof upon the expiry of 7 years from their respective dates of registration. the defendant no. 1 by ..... , under the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to use the word 'spencer'. in this connection mr. bachawat cited several cases reported in 70 reports of patent cases, p. 235 at p. 257 and 51 reports of patent cases, p. 98 at p. 109 and submitted that an order should be passed restraining the defendant no. 1 from in any way interfering with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 1982 (HC)

Bihar State Agro-industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ram Chand ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-25-1982

Reported in : AIR1982Cal537

..... ' should also be taken into consideration.18. for reasons stated above, in our view, the appeal should succeed and the same is allowed. leave under clause 12 of the letters patent is revoked and all further proceedings in the suit no. 906 of 1978 (ram chand khosla v. state of bihar) are stayed, in the facts and circumstances of this case ..... appears that before the learned judge of the court of the first instance three grounds were urged by the appellant for revocation of leave under clause 12 of the letters patent viz., (i) no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this court; (ii) balance of convenience was in favour of the trial of the suit ..... appeal is directed against an order dated 27th aug., 1979 of mrs. khastgir, j. dismissing the appellant's application for revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the letters patent to institute the suit no. 906 of 1978 (ram chand khosla v. state of bihar). the facts out of which the said application in the court of the first instance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 1982 (TRI)

Hari Prakash Agarwalla Vs. Income-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-13-1982

Reported in : (1982)1ITD1014(Kol.)

..... from the residence of the assessee in the assessment order. from the order sheet entries, which were made by the ito during the course of regular assessment proceedings, it is patent that the subject-matter of discovery of jewellery from the premises of the assessee and the bank locker was not at all the subject-matter of inquiry by him. in ..... case that the income from the said source had been disclosed by the assessee in his return of income and the ito had omitted to consider it.it is also patent that in the assessment order the ito makes no reference to this source of income of the assessee. there is not even incidental or collateral examination of the discovery of .....

Tag this Judgment!


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