Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-28-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT7(HC)
..... designs registered in any other part of 'his majesties dominions' provided the central government found that such other dominion had made satisfactory provision for the protection of inventions or designs patented or registered in india. under section 78a(4) of the 1911 act, the united kingdom, new zealand, eire. ceylon, canada and australia were notified as convention countries. the applicant ..... act is section 135. section 135(1) provides :'135. convention application.--(1) without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 6, where a person has made an application for a patent in respect of an invention in a convention country (hereinafter referred to as the 'basic application'), and that person or the legal representative or assignee of that person makes an ..... application under this act for a patent within twelve months after the date on which the basic application was made, the priority date of a claim of the complete specification, being a claim based on matter disclosed ..... convention country for all the provisions of the act with retrospective effect from 20lhapril 1972. the explanatory memorandum issued in. support of the notification dated 29.12.1972 reads :the patents act, 1970 was brought into force on the 20th april, 1972. under section 133(1) of that act, the central government is empowered to declare a country as a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-26-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Cal119,(2000)2CALLT162(HC)
..... ' (see page 16 of the judgment).15. mr. chakraborty on the other hand relied on the case of 'dunlop rubber co. ltd. v. golf ball developments ltd.': 48 reports of patent, design and trade mark cases 268, where mr. justice farwell construing the provisions of the english act held (at page 279 of the report) as follows :'......again in this section ..... the commonest and most ordinary thing--the one thing must be an exact reproduction of the other; and the old view which one had in dealing with patents as to a thing being simply a colourable departure is no longer applicable. in order to come within the act of parliament it must be the exact thing: and any ..... people from taking the most ordinary thing in the word and making it peculiar to themselves, is that you must recognise the fact that the principles which guide us in patent cases are not applicable here. therefore in order to come within the act of parliament and i think you may come within the act of parliament in the case of ..... 'solely by the eye' (see section 2(5) of the said act).12. the house of lords in the case of 'gramophone company ltd. magazins holder company' : 28 reports of patent, design and trade mark cases 221 dealt with an action for infringement of design under the english act. earl of halsbury in his concurring speech (at page 226 of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-21-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT146(HC),2000(71)ECC72
..... duty from the respondents-writ petitioners because the withdrawal of exemption was hit by the invocation of this doctrine of promissory estoppel. the judgment under appeal therefore suffered from aforesaid patent error of law and mis-appreciation of the scope of the exemption granted and its subsequent withdrawal. we have thus no hesitation in allowing this appeal and setting aside the ..... v.k, gupta. j.1. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is directed against judgment dated 27/3/92 passed by the learned single judge of this court in metter no. 2897 of 1989 whereby he has by allowing the writ .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-02-1999
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT285(HC),1999(2)CHN107
..... judges of the court, whether with or without the chief justice, shall constitute the several division courts as aforesaid.'60. clause 36 of the letters patent. 1865 continued this power of the chief justice of the high court in bengal.61. the government of india act, 1915 then provided :'108. ..... order dealing with such question of procedure and jurisdiction is an appealable order, being a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent.'44. the observations are applicable to the order under appeal. the court did not merely adjourn the hearing. the question of adjournment was intermixed with ..... air1973cal248 where it was held an order involving a jurlsdlctional question is appealable as a judgment under clause 15 of the letters patent.42. similarly in tin and allied products ltd. v. g. bohlar & co. : 75 cwn 416 an order was passed granting leave to a plaintiff ..... with a suit or proceeding is involved and a decision on that question is given, such decision is a 'judgment' within meaning of clause 15, letters patent (cal.) and is appealable.41. this was the view of a division bench in rawatmal bhatrutdan v. the rajputacna trading co. (pvt.) ltd. : ..... from an order passed under the arbitration act, in case not covered by section 39(1) of the said act, under clause 15 of the letters patent where no question of jurisdiction involved ?'18. in answering that question the special bench relying primarily on union of india v. mohlndra supply co. (supra .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-06-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Cal148,(2000)2CALLT56(HC)
..... of appeal within strict limits defined by section 39'. therefore, so far the second part is concerned, namely, the maintainability of the appeal under letters patent it stands concluded by this decision.'8. learned advocate appearing for the appellants relied upon section 5 of 1996 act and submitted that since the disputes in ..... lay under section 39(2) against a decision given by a learned single judge under section 39(1). in respect of the jurisdiction under letters patent the court observed that since arbitration act was a consolidating and amending act relating to arbitration it must be construed without any assumption that it was ..... a right to appeal except in the cases specified, from one judge of the high court to a division bench is expressly granted. but the letters patent are declared by clause 37 subject to the legislative power of the governor-general in council and also of the governor-in-council under the government of ..... advocate for the appellant submitted that even if the appeal is not maintainable under section 37 of 1996 act, it lies under clause 15 of the letters patent.6. a four judge bench of the supreme court in the case of union of india v. mohtndra supply co. reported in : 3scr497 ..... appeal under sub-section (1) is competent.' 7. it may be worthwhile to mention that clause 37 of letters patent of punjab is in par! materla to clause 44 of our letters patent. mohlndra supply co. came to be noticed in a later judgment of the supreme court in the case of state .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-06-1999
Reported in : 2000(1)ARBLR241(Cal)
..... that an order refusing to grant injunction would be a judgment. fazal ali, and varadarajan, jj. clearly held that the concept of the letters patent governing only the internal appeals in the high courts and the code of civil procedure having no application to such appeals is based on a ..... ) of the act and as section 100a of the cpc which was intro-duced by the amendment act specifically bars any further appeal, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable. 38. as indicated hereinbefore section 104 of the code of civil procedure also expressly bars another appeal. in any event, ..... power flowing from the paramount charter under which the high court functions would not get excluded unless the statutory enactment concerned expressly excludes appeals under letters patent. no such bar is discernible from section 6(3) of the act. it could not be seriously contended by learned counsel for the respondents ..... appeal would not be maintainable in view of the constitutional provisions as also the provisions of the representation of the people act and as such a letters patent appeal should be barred by necessary implication. in r. v. middlesex justices, ex parte schock, reported in (1965) 2 all er 68, queen ..... court has clearly held that section 39 of the arbitrationact would not be a bar in entertaining an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent. the contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. as indicated hereinbefore the supreme court in that case was .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Mar-04-1999
Reported in : AIR1999Cal123
..... the order rejecting the application for revocation of leave is not appealable, inasmuch as, it is not a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of letters patent. we have no hesitation in rejecting the said submission. in (1985) 57 com cas 503 : (1984 tax lr 2091), calcutta chemical co. v. ..... a mere allegation of balance of convenience by the defendant would not be sufficient for the court to revoke leave under clause 12 of the letters patent would seem to suggest that the important thing is not the allegation but the satisfaction of the court thatthe balance of convenience was overwhelmingly in favour ..... the relief stands the test, the suit will not be a suit for land or other immovable property within the meaning of clause 12 of letters patent, although the grant of such relief may indirectly affect the land or other immovable property. if, however, by applying the test, it is found ..... be tried is the appropriate district court in ranchi having territorial jurisdiction of the immoveable properties, it was submitted.22. suits under clause 12 of letters patent have been divided into two categories;(i) suits for land or other immoveable property and (ii) other suits; 23. in the case of suits ..... 1998 on an application of the appellants/defendants nos. 2 and 3 inter alia, praying for revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of letters patent and for dismissal of the suit. by the said order, the learned single judge dismissed the application of the appellants/defendants nos. 2 and 3 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-30-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT77(HC)
..... where in ordinary course the writ court should have insisted on the alternative remedy being availed of by the writ petitioner since, clearly the order impugned was patently erroneous and suffered from total lack of jurisdiction. it is a settled principle of law that the rule regarding alternative remedy being availed of before filing ..... no hesitation in setting aside and quashing the order dated 11.5.94 and the consequential order dated 25.7.96 since both these orders suffer from patent lack of inherent jurisdiction. we are of the view that the learned single judge ought not to have dismissed the writ application in llmlne on the ground ..... act. rather than letting that happen, the respondent no. 1 passed the impugned order on 11.5.94. that order therefore clearly was without jurisdiction and in patent violation of section 36(b)(1) of the act. once the period of one year had elapsed, the state bar council had lost its jurisdiction. over ..... 36(b) of the act suffered from the basic defect of total lack of inherent jurisdiction and that this order was passed in patent violation of the mandatory prescription contained in section 36(6) of the act. it is a very well settled principle of law that if an order ..... patently suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction or is in total violation of a mandatory legal requirement, this court does not insist on the petitioner .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Dec-07-1999
Reported in : (2000)1CALLT346(HC)
..... the territorial jurisdiction to do so. the territorial jurisdiction of this court as a court of original jurisdiction, has been prescribed by clause 12 of the letters patent. the relevant extract of clause 12 lays down that the high court-'(i) in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, shall be empowered to ..... contend that the application was in fact a 'suit' for land outside the jurisdiction of this court within the meaning of clause 12 of the letters patent. it is contended that the actual object of the application filed by the respondent no. 1 was to affect immoveable property outside the jurisdiction of the ..... which have, in the case of shah bahulal khimji v. jayahen : : 1scr187 , been recognised as judgments for the purpose of clause 15 of the letters patent.18. the unreported decision in binaguri investment pvt ltd. v. goutam roy & ors. (judgment dated 11.8.98 in g.a. no. 2720 of 1998 in ..... nothing had been decided by the order dated 18th may 1998 and that the order was not a judgment within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. reliance has been placed on an unrepbrted bench decision in binaguri investment pvt. ltd. v. goutam roy & ors. (judgment dated 11.8.98 in ..... ble court may deem fit and proper.' 6. an ex-parte order was passed on the same date after granting leave under clause of the letters patent in terms of prayer (a). the learned judge appointed joint special officers for the purpose of making an inventory of the complex and to ascertain .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-19-1999
Reported in : (1999)2CALLT230(HC)
..... not otherwise appealable under the code was a 'judgment' under clause 15 of the letters patent. the cases have no bearing in this case as the order challenged is appealableunder the code.11. both respondents submitted that the appellate court should not interfere at this stage ..... passage of a.n. sen-j :'this right of appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is in no way curtailed or affected by section 104 of the code of civil procedure and section 104 seeks to confer the right of preferring an appeal in respect ..... in the high court and that the provisions of the code did not curtail but gave an additional right of appeal to those available under clause 15 of the letters patent. an order which is expressly appealable under the code does not have to fulfil the requirement of being a 'judgment' under clause 15. this is lucidly expressed in the following ..... in respect of various orders mentioned therein, even though such order may or may not be appealable under clause 15 of the latters patent as a judgment and the right of appeal under clause 15 of the latters patent remains clearly unimpairted.'10. in the calcutta and madras high court decisions cited, the only queslion was whether a particular order which was .....Tag this Judgment!