Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 12 of about 154 results (0.009 seconds)

Jun 06 2005 (HC)

Seema Ganesh Uikey Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-06-2005

Reported in : IV(2005)ACC500; 2007ACJ1090; 2005(4)ALLMR919; 2005(5)BomCR117; 2005(4)MhLj559

..... permitted to take a defence that he neither knew nor ought to have known the danger. 'the owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect' said their lordships. in our opinion, the said principle is applicable to the owner of a tree standing by the side of a road. if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 21 2005 (HC)

Pradeep Yogeshwar Nimje Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Apr-21-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR45; 2005(5)BomCR227; 2005(4)MhLj105

..... by central government under section 54 of mineral concession rules and found that when immaterial circumstance though brought to its notice, is ignored by central government such order suffered from patent error and deserved to be quashed. facts of present petition are totally different and hence this ruling has no application here. in 2002 (2) b.c.r. 149 : 2002 (1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2005 (HC)

Keshav Krishna Londhe (Dr.) Vs. Adarsh Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha L ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-03-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR669; 2005(5)BomCR404

..... . he has also relied upon the judgment of bombay high court in f.h. & b. corporation v. unichem laboratories, reported in : air1969bom255 to point out that question of infringement of patent is mixed question of law and fact. he contended that the question whether the petitioner is duly admitted as a member is a question of fact and in view of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 2005 (HC)

Atul Medical Vs. Cadila Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-06-2005

Reported in : III(2006)BC204; 2005(6)BomCR21; 2005(4)MhLj925

..... application for temporary injunction was made which was rejected. an appeal from order was preferred by the petitioner in this court which was dismissed. on 3/5/1999, the letters patent appeal filed by the petitioner was admitted by this court and the civil application for stay came to be disposed of with a direction that the petitioner should deposit an .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 24 2005 (HC)

Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority Vs. the State of Mahar ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Aug-24-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR812; 2005(4)MhLj893

..... section 45 has not been served, it does not prevent the vesting of the property in the government. in our view, therefore, the impugned order passed by the minister is patently illegal and he has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in him by law. it was not open for respondent no. 2 to consider whether notice was served in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2005 (HC)

Akola Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and anr. Vs. Anurag Anilkumar Rathi ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-30-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR879; 2005(4)MhLj97; [2006]66SCL255(Bom)

..... taken by the applicants under section 13(4) of the act, they are to approach debts recovery tribunal under section 17 of the said act. thus, the impugned order is patently illegal and cannot be sustained. it is however made clear that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are free to raise their contentions before debts recovery tribunal and the debts recovery .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 28 2005 (HC)

Hariharrao Vishwanathrao Bhosikar Vs. Datta Anandrao Pawar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-28-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR702; 2005(4)MhLj211

..... to answer the allegations. the last contention of the learned counsel is that the collector while permitting the complaints to add the leader of the parties as a complainant is patently erroneous order, passed by the collector in total defiance of the rigour of the statute. they submitted that there is no scope for the collector to take help of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 01 2005 (HC)

Arvind Bhaskar Limaye, Through His Power of Attorney Shri Prakash V. D ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-01-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR708; 2006(1)BomCR185; 2006(3)MhLj5

..... submitted that therefore the award which was passed by the reference court in respect of the damages which were awarded at the rate of rs.150/- p.s.m. was patently without jurisdiction and therefore the award was liable to be quashed and set aside. findings and conclusion: 6. in support of his claim, which was filed in the reference application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 2005 (HC)

Syed MohsIn Ali S/O Syed Shaukat Ali Vs. Smt. Noorus Saher W/O Syed Mo ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-03-2005

Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR1607

..... husband did not make any provision for her maintenance though he is said to have made attempts to bring his wife back in the matrimonial home. refusal and neglect is patent on record and lies in the fact that since the time the wife left the matrimonial home in february 1993, the husband has been making no contribution towards her maintenance .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2005 (HC)

Ghanshyam S/O Ramcharan Amghe and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and or ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-02-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR122; 2006(3)BomCR479; 2005(4)MhLj1142

..... c.s. no. 42, is bound to have such overriding effect on the earlier notification dt. 14-5-1963 under section 6 of the l.a. act, because of its patent inconsistency and consequently the latter becomes ineffective to the extent of such 41,396 sq.metres. it is this inconsistency and consequential partial invalidity that have driven the authorities acting .....

Tag this Judgment!

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