Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 1979 Page 1 of about 28 results (0.012 seconds)

Feb 08 1979 (HC)

NagIn Mansukhlal Dagli Vs. Haribhai Manibhai Patel

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-08-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Bom123

..... or damage or value of the property sued for did not exceed rupees one hundred. in view of the amendment to clause 12 of the letters patent, it is now not open to any party to contend that where the suit is cognizable either by the bombay city civil court or the bombay ..... question provided for by the said section 28. it was because at the date when the bombay rent act was enacted, clause 12 of the letters patent had not been amended, and the only exception to the high court's jurisdiction with respect to suits triable by the court of small cause at ..... proceedings cognizable by the high court in its admiralty, vice-admiralty, testamentary, intestate, matrimonial and insolvency jurisdictions and under any special law other than the letters patents and suits and proceedings cognizable by the small cause court. thus, by section 3 of the bombay city civil court act, the jurisdiction of the city ..... bombay, in which the debt or damage, or value of the property sued for, does not exceed one hundred rupees.'by the bombay high court letters patents amendment act, 1948 (bombay act xli of 1948), the said clause 12 was amended with respect to the aforesaid exception to the high court's power ..... the said section 41. the arguments of mr. sanghavi, however, overlook two very important statutory provisions, namely, the amendment to clause 12 of the letters patent of this high court and section 3 of the bombay city civil court act, 1948. the extent and limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 1979 (HC)

Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-i Vs. Tata Engineering and Loc ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-14-1979

Reported in : (1979)13CTR(Bom)209; [1980]123ITR538(Bom); [1979]2TAXMAN149(Bom)

..... selection and arrangement of plant, equipment, etc., for setting up the automotive division at tatanagar. (b) grant to telco on an exclusive basis for india the manufacturing rights, together with patents, patent rights, secret and other processes relating to the manufacture of automotive products. (c) supply of drawing and designs and full technical information required for the manufacture of automotive products. (d ..... and full technical information to be made available by m/s. daimler benz 'daimler benz will grant to telco on an exclusive basis for india the manufacturing rights together with patents, patent rights, secret and other processes relating to manufacturing programmes for the time being in force under this agreement.' 12. reference was then made to the provisions of cls. (17) ..... affidavit in respect of services rendered by m/s. henricot is annex.'c-1'. 15. in respect of both these companies it is stated by mr. moolgaonkar that no patent or patent rights or licences have been transferred or assigned to telco by either m/s. henricot or m/s. daimler benz. with regard to the services rendered by m/s. ..... the assessee-company but also for getting technical assistance which took the shape of the foreign company giving the assessee-company all inventions and designs relating to railway wagons, whether patented or not, owned by the british company. the british company was required to give full technical information in relation to the design and manufacture of any existing type of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 17 1979 (HC)

Sonya Dagdu and anr. Vs. Manhu Dagadu and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-17-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Bom62; (1980)82BOMLR119; 1980MhLJ17

..... such admitted appeal shall be disposed of as if the said section 38 had not come into force.'this clause thus, expressly protects and safeguards against the amending act, letters patent appeal already admitted and pending final hearing. such, however, is not the case here because this leave petition is yet pending admission. this clause speaks nil and is silent ..... application and unless shown that it is validly whittled down, the preliminary objection must fail.9. the turning question, therefore, is:--is the petitioners' right to appeal under the letters patent taken away by the amending act which, after the president's assent on 9th september 1976, came into force, albeit by stages, soon thereafter? by then, however, the suit ..... not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed in limine. mr. savant for the petitioners sought to repel this objection contending that right to appeal, including appeal under the letters patent, was one which vested in the petitioners in the year 1968 itself when the suit originated and this vested right remained untrammelled, notwithstanding the amending act. mr. agarwal appearing amicus ..... the district court failed. second appeal therefrom was dismissed by me on 7th feb. 1978. the defendants now pray for leave to prefer against my judgment, appeal under the letters patent.3. mr. vaishnav for the opponents a preliminary objection viz., that having regard to the relevant provisions of act no. 104 of 1976 (hereinafter the amending act) introducing manifold .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1979 (HC)

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-22-1979

Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR46

..... act 20 of 1962 with effect from april 23, 1962. by that amending act explanation 1 was substituted by a wholly different explanation. the new explanation provides as follows:'patent or proprietary medicines' means any medicinal preparation which bears either on itself or on its container or both a name which is not specified in a monograph in a pharmacopoeia ..... not containing alcohol but containing opium,indian hemp, or other narcotic drug or narcotic.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------explanation i to the schedule, as inserted by the amending act, provided as follows:explanation i.- 'patent or proprietary medicine' has the same meaning as in clause (h) of section 3 of the drugs act, 1940 (23 of 1940).clause (k) of section 3 of the ..... prescribed by section 20(2) of the act.(4) the plaintiffs' preparation codopyrin, as manufactured and marketed during the period september 26, 1961 to april 22, 1962, was a patent or proprietary medicine and was, therefore, liable to excise duty.8. we will now examine the appellants' case with respect to the maintainability of the suit under section 20(1 ..... under the name codopyrin without showing the name of the drug as specified in the british pharmacopoeia, 1958 edn., conveyed to the people the sense that it was a patent or proprietary preparation of the plaintiffs and was not an official preparation. in the said appeal the plaintiffs had also contended that codopyrin did not contain any narcotic drug or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 26 1979 (HC)

Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. M.V. Raghwan Iyer and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-26-1979

Reported in : 1983(14)ELT2289(Bom)

..... set aside. 14. as done by the madras high court in premraj and ganpatraj & co. v. assistant customs collector, : 1977(1)elt166(mad) , the order of the 1st respondent being patently illegal and clearly unsustainable from any point of view, it is in the fitness of things that the appropriate writ do issue for the grant of refund to the petitioner ..... , that any prejudice has been caused. if at all, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner which was kept out of a large amount of money by reason of the patently unsustainable order passed by the 1st respondent after a gross delay of nearly 3 years. i have not heard it said or read it laid down that a manifestly erroneous ..... had filed the affidavit-in-reply, the result would have been the same, for no amount of 'explanation' by him could possibly have made valid the order which is so patently unsustainable. the 1st respondent was, in the words of lord denning in r. v. paddington valuation officer, (1965) 2 all e.r. 836, cited with approval in h. r. syiem .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1979 (HC)

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. C. Damani and Co. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-1979

Reported in : 1989(25)LC216(Bombay)

..... metric tonnes) of silver. of these, sixteen contracts are covered by the earlier part of this order in which we have prima facie considered the action in preventing shipment as patently and blatantly illegal. the quantity covered by the 16 deals of contracts is 5100 kgs. (5.1 metric tonnes) of silver. it was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf ..... prevention of the shipment carried out in whatever manner it may have been carried out by whatever modus operandi, amounts to an illegal exercise of power-an illegality which is patent as well as blatant-and which, in the circumstances of the case, must be checked and controlled even by interim orders.11. thus it is clear that in respect of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 1979 (HC)

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shantabai and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-01-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Bom36; (1980)82BOMLR29; 1979MhLJ673

..... 25(2) were not attracted to the present case since the claimants had asked for a reasonable and fair compensation.6. the state of maharashtra has now filed this letters patent appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned judge in the first appeal dated 19th september 1973 whereunder the learned single judge was pleased to award enhanced compensation ..... (2) would apply and the court could not grant any amount in excess of the amount awarded by the collector. the letters patent appeal filed by the state of maharashtra will, therefore, have to be allowed.16. the letters patent appeal filed by the state of maharashtra is allowed. there will be no order as to the costs.17. before parting with ..... mehta, j.1. this is a letters patent appeal filed by the appellant the state of maharashtra, impugning the judgment and order passed by this court in first appeal no. 185 of 1965, d/- 19-9-1973.2. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1979 (HC)

Sau. Nakabai Vs. Mahadu Sakharam Adsule and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-14-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Bom208; 1980MhLJ105

..... . reliance thereon by mr, apte therefore, is equally misconceived.19. mr. apte objected to the applicant's relying on the 'incidents of tenancy' for the first time in the letters patent appeal as against her exclusive reliance on section 40 earlier before the three courts. the plaintiff's claim to the lands in dispute is entirely founded on her being one ..... placed by mr. apte on the judgments of this court in donkagouda ramchandragouda v. revanshidappa shivaligappa reported in air 1943 bom 148 and in the case of bavasaheb v. west patent press co. reported in : air1954bom257 , and the privy council judgment in the case of baboo lekhraj roy v. kunhya singh reported in (1877) 4 ind app 223 to show how ..... deshpande, j.1. this letters patent appeal, against a judgment of a learned single judge of this court in second appeal, on a certificate by him, raises a question of some importance, namely whether tenancy rights .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1979 (HC)

State of Maharashtra and ors. Vs. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Pvt. Ltd ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-22-1979

Reported in : 1990LC48(Bombay); 1979(4)ELT286(Bom)

..... was not a patent or proprietary medicine which attracted the application of item no. 4 in the schedule to the act. we may mention that on this aspect of the case no arguments whatsoever ..... statute does not apply to the suit.* * * * 21. so far as the last point urged before us, namely, that the plaintiffs' medicinal preparation codifying was during the period in question patent or proprietary medicine, we have already dealt with this aspect of the case while dealing with the question of maintainability of the suit, and we have already held that it ..... item no. 5 in the said schedule, because it having been manufactured from a formula which was standard formula found in the british pharmacopoeia, 1958 edition, it was not a patent or proprietary medicine. an order based on a statutory provision which had no existence during the relevant time cannot be said to be an order passed under the act. secondly ..... limitation prescribed by section 20(2) of the act.(4) the plaintiffs' preparation codopyrin, as manufactured and marketed during the period september 26, 1961 to april 22, 1962, was a patent or proprietary medicine and was, therefore, liable to excise duty.8. we will now examine the appellants' case with respect to the maintainability of the suit under section 20(1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 05 1979 (HC)

Phiroze Temulji Anklesaria Vs. H.C. Vashistha and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-05-1979

Reported in : AIR1980Bom9

..... the right to take possession of the houses situated on the land which are mentioned in the impugned notice -- are found to be non-existing. the impugned notice, therefore, is patently without any authority of law and is not supportable by the terms of the grant which itself has not been proved.27. in the result, it must be held that ..... of the holding. we are unable to accept this interpretation because if the assessment referred to above is the one to be made under the land revenue code, it is patent that the land revenue code could not have applied in the first place to the lands in the cantonment board.26. on a consideration of all the material that has .....

Tag this Judgment!


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