Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: kolkata Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 57 results (0.014 seconds)

Oct 16 2002 (TRI)

Graphite India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Decided on : Oct-16-2002

Reported in : (2003)86ITD384(Kol.)

..... the exclusive benefits of and absolute right to all inventions, improved process of manufacture, designs, secret materials, formulas of mixing, improvements in addition to or further inventions relating to the patents or processes of manufacture or products manufactured or being developed by the company or otherwise relating to the business and affairs of the company which you may produce, make, invent ..... any such improvement, invention or additions as the company shall think fit. 7. you shall agree that any and all improvements, intentions and discoveries, whether or not capable of being patented, which you may make either alone or in conjunction with others during your appointment hereunder relating to or in anyway pertaining to or connection with any of the products of ..... of the company, execute and sign any and all applications, assignments and other instruments which the company may deem necessary or advisable in order to apply for and obtain letters patent design registration or other forms of protection for the said improvements, inventions and discoveries in such countries as the company may direct and to vest in the company alone or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2002 (HC)

Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-13-2002

Reported in : [2002]257ITR681(Cal)

..... . the beginning of section 32 is in the following terms : '32. depreciation.--(1) in respect of depreciation of- (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets ; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of april, 1998, owned, wholly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2002 (HC)

Saloo Choudhury and anr. Vs. Nissan Europe N.V. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-23-2002

Reported in : III(2007)BC595,(2004)3CALLT392(HC)

..... in hajee adam abdul shakoor v. alt mahomed ebrahim shakoov & ors. hence i find no reason to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs under clause 12 of the letters patent.17. mr. mookherjee's next submission is this. the balance of convenience is entirely against trial of the suit in this court. all the defendants have their offices and businesses ..... entertain a suit involves difficult and important questions, such questions should not be dealt with in an application filed for revocation of leave granted under clause 12 of the letters patent, and the proper way is to take the plea in the written statement as a substantive part of defense. hence the contention regarding lack of jurisdiction of this court is ..... j.k. biswas, j.1. defendant 3 in the suit has filed this application for revocation of leave granted to the plaintiffs under clause 12 of the letters patent and also for dismissal of the suit.2. the case made out in the plaint is this:the plaintiffs are motor enthusiasts and rallyists. in 1989 they circumnavigated the glove .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 2002 (HC)

Mehta Suraya and I.P.M. Industries Limited and ors. Vs. United Investm ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-05-2002

Reported in : AIR2002Cal108,(2002)2CALLT272(HC)

..... case. therefore, rule 3 order 20 cpc has to yield to rule 10 chapter xvi of the original side rules.31.3. clause 37 of the letter patent empowers the high court to make rules and orders for the purpose of regulating all proceedings in civil cases brought before it. but while making such rules ..... in section 129 with regard to its original jurisdiction. but only restriction that has been provided, is that such rules shall not be inconsistent with the letter patent or order or other law establishing it. there is noting in section 129, which prevents the high court from making rules regulating its procedure in the exercise ..... 41 rule 11 cpc the same cannot be brought within the purview of section 153a cpc. inasmuch as an appeal preferred under clause 15 of the letter patent is not required to be admitted under order 41 rule 11 cpc. in the present case the appeal having been disposed of, after issuing notice to the ..... 's contention may have bearing in respect of appeals dismissed under order 41 rule 11 cpc alone, but not otherwise.30. section 153a: clause 15 of letters patent : original side rules3o.1. but then, it is to be borne in mind, that the appeal, in the present case, was an appeal under clause 15 ..... of the letters patent. the suit was filed in the original side. it was so decreed in exercise of jurisdiction of this court in the original side, governed by original side .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2002 (HC)

State Bank of India Vs. Madhumita Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-16-2002

Reported in : AIR2003Cal7,II(2003)BC610

..... tribunal constituted under the drt act is not sub-ordinate to this court when it exercises the co-ordinate jurisdiction under the clause 12 of the letters patent. therefore, in the present case, drt is not a court sub-ordinate to the high court exercising co-ordinate jurisdiction under clause 12, as contemplated ..... is concerned, which is now being undertaken to be decided by this court is in the exercise of its original jurisdiction under clause 12 of the letters patent. it is not exercising a jurisdiction either under article 226 or 227. on the other hand, it stands as a court coordinate that of drt, ..... initiating or prosecuting their remedies before drt.13.3. that apart, while entertaining this suit, this court is exercising jurisdiction under clause 12 of the letters patent, which is a original jurisdiction. it is entertaining the same cause of action, which is being entertained by the drt, in that way, both the ..... drt. though, for a different reason, i have taken the same view that a proceeding before the drt cannot be subjected to clause 13 of the letters patent in all india tea trading company limited v. united bank of india, 2001 (2) bank clr 430 (cal). therefore, by reason of section 41(b), ..... july, 1996, hon'ble barin ghosh, j. was placed to hold that drt is not a court within the meaning of clause 13 of the letters patent. section 3 of the cpc also defines subordination of courts, which refers to courts established under the bengal, agra, and assam civil courts act. in any .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 17 2002 (HC)

P and I Services Private Limited Vs. the Board of Trustees for the Por ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Feb-17-2002

Reported in : (2003)1CALLT544(HC)

..... 15 of the letters patent as the impugned order is a judgment within the meaning of the said clause. it was observed that the order refusing to reject the plaint ..... reported in air 2002 bom 151 where following the decision in khimji's case (supra), the bombay high court inter alia, observed that the letters patent appeal attacking an order passed by the learned single judge refusing to reject the plaint from want of disclosure of cause of action is maintainable under clause ..... a controversy which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgment within the meaning of the letters patent.10. while considering the matter from various aspects and the various judgments of the different high courts oh the said point, the hon'ble supreme ..... 7 rule 11 refusing to reject the plaint and dismissing the application for rejection of the plaint is not appealable under clause 15 of the letters patent as the order is not a judgment within the meaning of that clause.7. mr. roychowdhury urged that strictly speaking- the application made by ..... control act, refusing to strike out the tea licensing committee as respondent, is not a judgment 'within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and accordingly, no appeal lay to a division bench'. while making the aforesaid observations the division bench relied mainly on an earlier judgment of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2002 (HC)

Amaresh Choudhury Vs. Gopinath Kundu and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Jun-12-2002

Reported in : (2002)2CALLT535(HC)

..... of this court. these, in my view, for not form a part of the cause of action and therefore leave under clause 12 of the letters patent cannot be granted. 14. the preliminary objection therefore succeeds. the application is dismissed. however, it will be open to the petitioner to apply for appropriate ..... the only question is 'can leave be granted under clause 12 of the letters patent to the petitioner to institute this application under section 9 in this court?' this question has to be answered on the basis of the averments made ..... one under section 11, has to be decided with reference to sections 16 to 20 of the code of civil procedure and clause 12 of the letters patent. i may only hasten to add that principle civil courts of original jurisdiction will also include ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this court. 12. now, ..... and the act of 1996 observed as follows : '...............that the model law was only taken into account in the draftingof the said act is, therefore patent. the act and the model law are not identically drafted. under section 11 the appointment of an arbitrator, in the event of a party to the ..... of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court as also to include a prayer for leave under clause 12 of the letters patent. such leave was granted. a supplementary affidavit filed affirmed by one sri amaresh chaudhury on 23.4.2002. even after filing of the supplementary affidavit .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 2002 (HC)

Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd. Vs. Shakti Highway Enterprises

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Apr-10-2002

Reported in : III(2004)BC334,(2003)1CALLT1(HC),[2004]49SCL642(Cal)

..... statutory provision. as for the instant case, the order is, however, patently erroneous. the learned company judge applied total wrong tests to ascertain whether the company's defence was bona fide or not. the company was required to adduce only prima facie ..... to the formula of 'patent error' only for the simple reason that in an appeal the appellant has the right to challenge the impugned decision both on facts and in law, unless specifically restricted by ..... mr. bose. he contended that discretion having been exercised by the learned judge in favour of admission of the winding up petition, at such stage, in the absence of any patent error, appeal court should not interfere. 31. we are unable to accept mr. bose's contention. the appeal court's power to interfere with such an order cannot be restricted ..... defence, and that in any event the winding up petition was at the admission stage only and the learned judge having exercised discretion in favour of admission, the findings, unless patently erroneous, were not open to interference by the appellate court.16. in support of his contention that a plea not taken in the reply to the statutory notice by taken .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2002 (TRI)

Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-16-2002

..... 'ble supreme court, in volkart bros' case (supra) that in order for a mistake to be covered by the scope of section 154, a mistake must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably by two opinions. in other words, in case .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2002 (TRI)

Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Decided on : Jul-16-2002

Reported in : (2003)85ITD745(Kol.)

..... honble supreme court, in volkart brothers case (supra) that in order for a mistake to be covered by the scope of section 154, a mistake must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably by two opinions. in other words, in case .....

Tag this Judgment!


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