Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 7 of about 154 results (0.008 seconds)

Jan 25 2005 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chadbourne and Parke Llp

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-25-2005

Reported in : (2005)93TTJ(Mum.)734

..... of a literary, artistic, or scientific work, including cinematograph films or work on film, tape or other means of reproduction for use in connection with radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trademark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience, including gains derived from the alienation of any such right or property .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2005 (HC)

Chotelal Ramkaran Yadav Vs. Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-17-2005

Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR261; 2006(1)MhLj873

..... (first appeal nos. 30 to 32 of 2001) were dismissed by a learned single judge (r.m.s. khandeparkar, j.) on 29th january, 2002. the plaintiffs aggrieved thereupon preferred letters patent appeals in which an order was passed by a division bench granting liberty to the appellants to file fresh suits after joining the owners of the property and after issuing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2005 (TRI)

D.C. Polyester Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-17-2005

Reported in : (2005)(188)ELT423Tri(Mum.)bai

2. the ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that in his written submission filed before the tribunal he has specifically mentioned that the issued involved in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision in the appellant's own cases of commissioner of customs, mumbai-ii v. d.c. polyesters pvt. ltd. reported in 2004 (176) e.l.t. 471 (tri. - mumbai) and commissioner of central excise, mumbai-iii v. d.c. polyester pvt. ltd. . while passing the order these two decisions have not been considered and as such the order suffers from the patent error and as such he submitted that the rom application may be allowed.3. the ld. jdr has no serious objection in allowing the rom application.4. i, therefore, allow the rom application. the case is fixed for regular hearing on 22-7-05.

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 2005 (TRI)

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)270

..... or lump sum, and, however described or computed, to the extent to which they are made as consideration for-- (a) the use of, or the right to use, any copyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, trademark, or other like property or right; (b) the use of, or the right of use, any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 2005 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Jasubhai Business Service (P)

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-29-2005

Reported in : (2006)100TTJ(Mum.)951

..... in its own line of business, (ii) the appellant was required to keep the process, technical know-how confidential and secret and non-partibility and was not to seek any patent for the process. thus, the assessee did not become owner of any process or technical know-how in its own right. the expenditure was thus for use and not for ..... in large scale manufacture of penicillin for a period of two years. the appellant was to keep the technical know-how confidential and secret and was not to seek any patent for the process. for the asst. yr. 1964-65, the appellant claimed deduction of the sum of rs. 2,39,625 as a revenue expenditure. both the department and the ..... trademark of the above journals and know-how for editorial content which is very prime for the journal. it was argued that the amount was paid not for acquiring any patent, right or copyright covered under section 35a and the amount was paid for acquiring the running business for use of trade name of the journal with existing rights of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2005 (HC)

Manohar Tanaji Suryavanshi Vs. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-07-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR260; [2005(106)FLR372]

..... of the view that the labour court had exercised its judicial discretion and the learned single judge having declined to interfere, there was no reason for interference in the letters patent appeal. the decision in vomayya babu shetty v. digvijay spinning and weaving mills : (1992)illj691bom , was one in which when a workman was searched by a watchman on duty, he .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 31 2005 (HC)

P.B. Samant Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Mar-31-2005

Reported in : 2005(3)ALLMR345; 2005(4)BomCR684

..... petition is not maintainable, because on the same ground, the petitioner had filed another petition before this court, which was dismissed. against that judgment, the petitioner had filed a letters patent appeal, which was also dismissed by the division bench. the petitioner, aggrieved by the said judgment, filed a special leave petition in the supreme court, which was also dismissed. therefore ..... the respondent. the admitted facts are that the petitioner filed the writ petition before this court, and on dismissal of that writ petition, he filed a letters patent appeal. after dismissal of the letters patent appeal, the petitioner preferred a special leave petition under article 136 of the constitution of india in the supreme court. that petition was also dismissed. the petitioner .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 06 2005 (HC)

Zenith Ltd. Vs. M.V. Pontoporos and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-06-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR452

..... i see no reason why these words in the act should be construed so narrowly as to exclude a wholly-owned subsidiary company claiming, as here, a right to sell patented articles which it has obtained from and been ordered to sell by its parent. of course, if the arbitration proceedings so decide, it may eventually turn out that the parent .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 20 2005 (HC)

Kishan S/O Ganpati Muley Deceased Lrs. Indrabai W/O Kishanrao Muley an ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-20-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR841; 2005(4)MhLj180

..... required to be considered and on that wrong assumption, the statutory declaration made in favour of the tenant came to be declared invalid which according to the learned advocate is patent error. he submitted that it was not the intention of the legislature nor a requirement of law to enquire into holdings of the heirs/successors of the landholder. he submitted ..... or share in the property of deceased-abdul quadar and the land remained undivided even after 5th may, 1957. therefore, in my judgment, all the three authorities below have committed patent error appearing on the face of record in holding that the family holding of each of the heirs of deceased abdul quadar is to be taken into consideration, which making ..... and if such error which is self-evident; even in cases where two views are reasonably possible in the same material, the findings arrived at cannot be called as a patent error. keeping the above parameters as deduced from surya dev rai and ranjeet singh's case, i had to judge the contention. in my judgment, the findings on the point .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 30 2005 (HC)

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. Sunfield Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-30-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)BomCR850; 2005(4)MhLj607

..... any way, derogate from the above position. merely because a subsequent letter was written, does not alter the undisputed position emerging as above and, therefore, the learned arbitrator committed a patent error in not giving due weight to the undisputed position emerging from the admitted documents on record.it is the contention of the claimant that because the confirmation of the ..... support of its plea of exclusion made in its written statement and there was no objection to the same for want of particulars in the pleadings. as such, it is patently unjust and improper for the learned arbitrator not to exclude the said period in the calculations of demurrage merely on the ground that the pleading in this behalf is general ..... by way of demurrage, the learned arbitrators could not have awarded the same unless the claimant proved the same.7. it is submitted that the learned arbitrator has committed a patent error of law in holding that the claim for demurrage is not by way of damages and has thereby proceeded on an erroneous basis in granting the claim without the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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