Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 33 results (0.007 seconds)

Dec 04 1980 (HC)

Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-04-1980

Reported in : [1982]136ITR746(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN85(Bom)

..... a limited period of the technical knowledge of the swiss company with the right to use to patents and trade marks of that company. the assessee acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw, for the purposes of carrying on its business ..... the india i.t. act, 1922. the assessee did not under the agreement become entitled exclusively even for the period of the agreement, to the patents and trade marks of the swiss company, it had merely filed which the swiss company commenced. the assessee was on that account a mere licence for ..... of the products made and sold by the assessee-company, the fee being subject to indian taxes, if any. (c) for the right to use the patents and the inscription 'license-grasso' as described in clause 15, the assessee-company will pay to the said grasso a royalty of 2% on the 'net ..... previous written consent of the other party. by cl. 8 both the parties agreed to give each other a free licence of existing and future patents in the filed of the products mentioned in cl. 1 of the said agreement. by cl. 9, the assessee undertook to start the manufacture of ..... scientific and technical knowledge and information, know-how, engineering date, calculations, drawings, designs, material specification, experience and continuous development with the benefit of all patents held by the said grasso in connection with products described in cl. 1 of the said agreement. the objection of the said agreement which has been described .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 1980 (HC)

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kusum Charudutt Bharma Upadhye

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-17-1980

Reported in : (1981)83BOMLR75; 1981MhLJ93

..... there is also inherent evidence in clause 15 to show that it is not limited to judgments given in exercise of the jurisdictions expressly mentioned in the letters patent. the letters patent make no mention of revisional jurisdiction and yet the parenthetical portion in clause 15 excludes an order made by single judge in exercise of provisional jurisdiction on the footing ..... under various other enactments also, for example, under section 25 of the provincial small cause courts act, 1887. the words 'power of superintendence' in clause 15 of the letters patent are, however, expressly qualified by the words 'under the provisions of section 107 of the government of india act'. the power of superintendence conferred upon high courts by section ..... past and has made absolutely a new original and vital beginning.while considering this question! the said full bench has referred to earlier legislations as '.imperial' legislations and the letters patent issued for the establishment of the three chartered high courts as. having been- issued by the then, 'imperial' sovereign. at the outset we may point out that queen ..... taken a contrary view (see budge budge municipality v. mongru mia : air1953cal433 (2); sukhendu v. hare krishna : air1953cal636 (2) and p. k. lavjibhai v. narottamdas : air1979guj1 ). by letters patent dated december 9, 1927 published in the bombay government gazette dated february 2, 1928, part i, at pp. 196 and. 197, clause 15 was substituted. this substituted clause was amended .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1980 (HC)

The Shipping Development Fund Committee Vs. M.V. Charisma and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-28-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom42

..... there is no mention of the provisions of the 1861 act or the letters patent.10. i have pondered over the question whether the ship mortgagor would be in a more onerous position if the ship mortgagee were required to file the ..... 9. i see no implied repugnance between the provisions of the 1958 act on the one hand and clause 11 of the 1861 act read with the letters patent, clause 32, on the other hand. i may mention that though the 1958 act provides a list in its schedule of the enactments which it repeals ..... repeal by the 1958 act of provisions of clause 11 of the 1861 act in so far as it applied to this court under clause 32 of the letters patent.6. it will be noted, first, that there are very many high courts in this country which exercise no ordinary original civil jurisdiction. it will be ..... high court of admiralty in england under statute or otherwise. that jurisdiction this court continues to exercise by virtue of the provisions of clause 32 of the letters patent, 1865. in 1894 the merchant shipping act was re-enacted in england. section 31 thereof gave to the ship-mortgage power to sell the mortgage security without ..... repugnancy between the aforementioned sections of that statute and the provisions of section 11 of the 1861 act read with clause 32 of the letters patent. there was, it was said, a direct conflict between the aforementioned provisions of the 1958 act and those of the 1861 act and of the letters .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 1980 (HC)

J.G. Sinkar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-14-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom184; 1981MhLJ18

..... india, reported in . the supreme court observed that 'a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. a mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled argument, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground ..... miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.'these are unqualified observations. shri angel argues before us that the facts of that case showed how patently injustice was done by passing an order without hearing the parties who were affected by that order. that may be the occasion for considering the question of right of review ..... the supreme court from an order of the orissa high court. since there was no such provision for review anywhere either in law or in the letters patent or other instrument, the supreme court held that the controlling provisions are only those contained in sections 369 and 424 of the criminal procedure code of 1898. this section expressly takes away ..... that, 'save as otherwise provided by this code or by any other law for the time being in force or, in the case of a high court, by the letters patent or other instrument constituting such high court, no court when it has signed its judgment shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error.' the matter reached .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 1980 (HC)

HarkishIn Lakhimal Gidwani Vs. Achyut Kashinath Wagh and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-11-1980

Reported in : [1982]52CompCas1(Bom); 1981MhLJ61

..... of quashing of the proceeding is asked for after issuance of process, then, inherent powers may be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in rare cases and that too, to correct patent illegalities.53. in my opinion, therefore, on the premises as regards the interpretation of s. 630 of the act, the issuance of process is manifestly justified and it cannot be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 1980 (HC)

Pitambardas Kalyanji Bakotiya Vs. Dattatraya Krishnaji

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-06-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom388; 1981MhLJ290

..... the tenant was aware of the same. the knowledge that construction of kitchen platform would cause damage can be attributed to the petitioner provided the defect in the building was patent and could be seen with naked eve. the construction made by the petitioner was a reasonable use of the property, the premises being leased for the purpose of residence. the ..... it is done with the intention of knowledge that such user would damage the property. the knowledge could be attributed to the lessee provided the defects in the property are patent and not latent. in either of the cases, the damage or waste to the premises could be described as voluntary. neither the fact of the damage nor the evidence that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 09 1980 (HC)

Parle Products Private Limited Vs. C.S. Saraswati and Another

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-09-1980

Reported in : [1981(43)FLR122]; (1981)IILLJ419Bom; 1981MhLJ646

..... only that victimisation was not proved but that it could not be said that the order had not been passed in good faith or that it had been made for patently false reasons. with regard to the misconduct, the tribunal held that it could not be said that the ('offence') alleged against the workman was of trivial nature and the punishment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Tejoomal Lakhmichand Vs. M.J. Talegaonkar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Bom369

..... promised or of money or other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms, patently, a lease is a contract whereunder the transferee accepts certain obligations. the transferee, or lessee or tenant, must, therefore, be one who is capable of contracting. an unregistered association is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 10 1980 (HC)

Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-10-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom299; (1981)83BOMLR173; 1981MhLJ855

..... having territorial jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter in dispute.47. our attention was also drawn to the latest pronouncement of lord denning m.r. reported in levision v. patent steam carpet cleaning co. ltd. (1977) 3 all er 498. the contention of shri kotwal is that if the limiting clause excluding exemption clause was unreasonable then it should not .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1980 (HC)

Talakchand Jayachand Doshi and ors. Vs. Bhaichand Gautamchand Doshi an ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-16-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom19; 1981MhLJ931

..... the opinion that the present darkhast is not wholly barred by limitation and it must be proceeded with for recovering all monies due from 10th dec., 1956.12. the letters patent appeal thus fails substantially. the decree-holder has failed only to the extent of about three instalments, between september and dec. 1956. in view of this fact, the appellants must ..... mentioned above, was dismissed by vaidya j. by his judgment and order dated 12th aug., 1975. it is this order that is the subject-matter of challenge in this letters patent appeal.4. mr. pinge, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants who are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, has raised several points in this appeal. in the ..... by the respondents in this appeal. the appellants are the judgment-debtors and having failed both before the executing court and before vaidya j., they have now preferred this letters patent appeal.2. in special civil suit no. 60 of 1953 filed in the court of the civil judge, senior division at solapur, one bhaichand gautamchand doshi obtained a decree based ..... jahagirdar, j.1. this letters patent appeal seeks to challenge the order of vaidya j. dated 12th of aug., 1975 by which he dismissed first appeal no. 153 of 1971 preferred by the appellants in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

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