Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 43 results (0.007 seconds)

Aug 29 1986 (HC)

Pramod Son of Laxmikant Sisamkar and Uday Narayanrao Kirpekar Vs. Garw ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-29-1986

Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR411

..... disclosure and divulgence of any and all informations, instrument, document, reports, statements, logs, records, correspondence, discussion, contract plans, drawings, photographs, copies, methods, trade secrets, manufacturing process, machinery know-how, layouts, patents, transaction, affairs, dealings, finances and accounts etc. of the company that may pass through or come to the knowledge of the employees, during the continuance of their employment as well .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1986 (HC)

Shipyard Technical Staff Assn. and Others Vs. Mazgaon Docks Ltd. and A ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-25-1986

Reported in : (1987)IILLJ266Bom

..... provides that in case the company acquires the patent as exclusive privilege it would be for a consideration fixed by the managing director. having regard to the limited class of inventions covered by this ..... unreasonable in requiring the officer to obtain the previous consent of the competent authority in regard to an application for a patent or exclusive privilege in respect of such invention or in requiring him to permit its use by the company free of charge. the rule also ..... company may take over such patent or exclusive privilege for such consideration as the managing director may fix.14. the phraseology employed in this rule leaves no doubt that it is ..... to adopt and use it without being obliged to pay any royalty or other consideration therefor. the officer may not assign, charge or transfer the patent or exclusive privilege without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority and without providing it for use by the company free of charge. the ..... meant to apply only to patents or exclusive privileges in respect of inventions made on the basis of knowledge or experience gained in the service of the company. there is nothing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 22 1986 (HC)

Narotamdas Trikamdas Toprani Vs. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. L ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-22-1986

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR649; [1990]68CompCas300(Bom)

..... lower margin as the trustees may agree, on the security comprising the net (depreciated) book value of the then existing fixed assets (excluding motor cars, vehicles, furniture and fixtures, goodwill, patents, etc.) of the company and the company doth hereby agree and undertake that in case, for any reason, such net (depreciated) fixed assets cover falls below 40% or such lower .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 1986 (HC)

Albright Morarji and Pandit Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-12-1986

Reported in : [1987]166ITR583(Bom)

..... english company which was entered into on november 10, 1966, and the specifically provides that the petitioner shall, during the continuance of the agreement and, thereafter, not disclose the un patented information disclosed to it by the english company by virtue, or as a result, of the implementation of the agreement. the petitioner was required to ensure that the information received ..... -months, provided however that the number of such technicians at any time shall not be more than three. clause 8 of the agreement permits hindustan lever limited to use relevant patents of the petitioner connected with the process/technical information used in the manufacture of the product, while clause 9.03 grants permission to hindustan lever limited to use drawings and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 04 1986 (HC)

The Singer Company and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-04-1986

Reported in : AIR1986Bom286; 1986MhLJ280

..... hearing was given to the petitioners by the then deputy secretary.4. identical letters dt. 19th feb. 1979 addressed to the petitioners' trade marks attorneys by the controller general of patents, designs and trade marks said thus :'with reference to the above matter, i have to state that the central government have carefully considered all the material in connection with the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 25 1986 (HC)

Mill Manager, Savatram Ramprasad Mills Vs. Industrial Court and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-25-1986

Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR517

..... workman, such order cannot be sustained.'15. these observations are clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. we may further observe that in the present case, it is patent on the fact of the report of the enquiry officer as well as the impugned order of punishment that the petitioner did not, in awarding the punishment, take any account ..... court. the matter came up for hearing before the learned single judge, who dismissed the writ petition and confirmed the order of the industrial court, and hence the present letters patent appeal.4. mr. deshpande urged the following points for our consideration, viz. (1) the past service record is relevant only when it has any bearing on the punishment to be ..... m.m. quazi, j.1. the present letters patent appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. the respondent no. 2 was an employee of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 1986 (HC)

Vasudev C. Wadhwa Vs. Muktaben B. Khakhar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-10-1986

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR587; 1986MhLJ931

..... order finally disposes of the proceeding in which interim relief is sought. if that be so, it would be a 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent and an appeal would lie therefrom to a larger bench.7. in this view of the matter, the preliminary objection is required to be rejected and the appeal is held ..... to hear appeals under clause 15 of the letters patent. the relevant observations are to be found in paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 of shah rabulal's case, particularly the last-mentioned paragraph. we are clearly bound by these observations ..... attention to observations in shah babulal khimji v. jayaben : [1982]1scr187 , which are to the effect that the provisions of the arbitration act cannot override the provisions of the letters patent. in other words, it was contended that these powers under special enactment confer additional powers of appeal to a larger bench and cannot restrict the powers of the larger bench ..... not be maintainable under section 39 of the arbitration act, its maintainability will have to be considered under the provisions of clause 15 of the letters patent. as far as clause 15 of the letters patent is concerned, it is now well settled that an appeal would lie from a decision of the court refusing interim relief, since, as far as the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 06 1986 (HC)

Siona Nuriel Samuel Vs. Nuriel Nissim Samuel

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-06-1986

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR646; 1987MhLJ99

..... -ed.]6. the learned counsel who oppose the transfer of the three matters to the city court, submit that because these matters admittedly fall under clause 12 of the letters patent, they cannot be treated as suits cognizable by this court as a 'court having matrimonial jurisdiction'. according to them the only suits that fall under this description are the ones ..... matrimonial matters arising under the jewish law are beyond the mischief of section 4a of the act, because this court entertains them under clause 12 (not 35) of the letters patent? it will be of advantage to extract the material portions of sections 3 and 4a of the act:3. the state government may by notification in the official gazette, establish ..... bom. l.r. 578, and dr. pinhas ezekil silas v. sally silas : air1983bom263 . without covering the entire ground, i may only say that operation of clause 35 of the letters patent is in terms restricted to 'our subjects professing the christian religion'. obviously matrimonial matters under the jewish law will not fall under clause 35.5. now the crux of the ..... is hereby overruled.4. it is not and cannot be disputed that matrimonial disputes arising under the jewish law fall under clause 12 and not clause 35 of the letters patent, this position has been settled by a string of judicial pronouncements. if at all necessary, we may see benjamin v, benjamin : (1926)28bomlr328 , mozelle robin solomon v. lt. col. r .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 25 1986 (HC)

Khotani Construction Co., Vs. Anwar Haji Alimohammed Cassum and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-25-1986

Reported in : 1986(3)BomCR454

..... case any further. (h) but even after every provision of procedural law is assumed to be in favour of misquitta, the question of the almost patent fraud committed by him still remains. further, there are indications that responsible officer of this court has played mischievous and apparently collusive part in the ..... played by mr. pai as the receiver's representative of making a virtual donation of these lands to misquitta on a platter by admitting the patently fraudulent claim of misquitta before the tenancy court. all this smacks of fraud and collusion not to mention breach of trust. neither plaintiff no. ..... by the receiver's office as also about the noticeable connivance indulged in by each of the mamlatdars trying the particular tenancy proceedings at the patent fraud practised by the manifestly mischievous misquitta in connection with each of the tenancy proceedings referred to above. secondly, it is possible that plaintiff ..... managing the property and for whom he was in the position of a constructive trustee. whatever it may be, only one of the two patent illegalities was brought to the notice of the appellate authority. misquitta had no answer to the same. the result was that the appeal was ..... and a farce-drama was enacted of having effected service of the notice of the tenancy application upon the dead person. it was in this patently fraudulent manner that an order was obtained by misquitta against the receiver alone behind the back of the present plaintiffs and that too in spite .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 1986 (HC)

Union Bank of India Vs. Sunpac Corporation and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-06-1986

Reported in : AIR1986Bom353; (1986)88BOMLR148; 1986MhLJ237

..... followed so far, the office refuses to admit the plaint since the plaintiff before presenting the plaint had not obtained leave of the court under cl. 12 of the letters patent and insists upon returning the plaint to the plaintiff for fresh presentation after obtaining the said leave.2. there is no dispute that for filing the suit in question in ..... suits. one of the defects can be the absence of leave of the court to institute the suit where it is necessary including leave under cl. 12 of the letters patent. so long therefore as the plaint is not admitted and entered in the register of suits all defects including that of the absence of leave under the said clause can ..... be made to : air1934bom91 ramgopal chunilal v. ramsarup baldevdas.6. hence i direct the office not to return the plaint for want of leave under cl. 12 of the letters patent but only require the plaintiff to obtain the leave and admit it to the register when the leave is obtained. order accordingly.

Tag this Judgment!


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