Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: supreme court of india Year: 1986 Page 1 of about 55 results (0.163 seconds)

Jan 14 1986 (SC)

Monsanto Company by their Patent Agent, De Penning and De Penning Vs. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-14-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC712; 1986(2)ARBLR19(SC); (1986)3CompLJ66(SC); 1986(1)SCALE74; (1986)1SCC642; [1986]1SCR120; 1986(1)LC304(SC)

..... as a company in india. it was stated in the plaint that the first plaintiff was the patentee of inventions entitled 'phytotoxic compositions' and 'grass selective herbicide compositions', duly patented under patent number 104120 dated march 1, 1966 and 125381 dated february 20, 1970. the claims and the particulars relating to the inventions were stated to be contained in the specifications of ..... as contained in this marked as m.o.nos. 2 and 3. the plaintiffs also asked for an account etc. annexed to the plaint were the two specifications relating to patent numbers 104120 and 125381. in the specification relating to 'phytotoxic composition' (specification no. 104120), it was claimed : we claim :1. a phytotoxic composition comprising as an active ingredient a ..... the legend on the tins containing the substance manufactured by the defendants showed that what was sold by the defendants was nothing but a reproduction of the first plaintiff's patented formulations. the formulations of the defendant were sent to shri ram institute for analysis and they were said to contain the chemical 'butachlor chemical formula for which is 2 ..... so much the plaintiffs said, and this is very important, 'the active ingredient mentioned in the claim is called 'butachlor'. it suggested, without expressly saying it that the plaintiffs' patents covered butachlor also which in fact it did not, as we shall presently see. it was next stated that the first plaintiff had permitted the second plaintiff to work the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 14 1986 (SC)

Umaji Keshao Meshram and ors. Vs. Radhikabai, Widow of Anandrao Banapu ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-14-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1272; (1986)88BOMLR432; 1986(1)SCALE681; 1986Supp(1)SCC401; [1986]1SCR731; 1986(2)LC319(SC)

..... expressly mentioned in clause 15 but as the chartered high courts were entertaining intra-court appeals from judgments given in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, when the letters patent were amended in 1919 an intra-court appeal from an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction was expressly excluded. similarly, to prevent intra-court appeals ..... , the court for divorce and matrimonial causes, and the london court of bankruptcy. these several jurisdictions were conferred upon the high courts by different clauses of the letters patent. clause 14, however, specifically provided for an intra-court appeal only from judgments 'in all cases of original civil jurisdiction'. the marginal note to clause 14 was ..... exercise of original civil jurisdiction of the high court and clause 15 dealing with appeals from the subordinate civil courts in the presidency. other clauses of the 1862 letters patent conferred upon the bombay high court jurisdiction over infants and lunatics, insolvency jurisdiction, civil and criminal, admiralty and vice-admiralty, testamentary and intestate jurisdiction, matrimonial jurisdiction, ..... involves tracing in brief the origin and development of judicial institutions and administration of justice in the former province of bombay. apart from the various charters and letters patent granted by the british crown and the statutes passed by the british parliament, much useful information in this regard can be gathered from other sources, particularly 'the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 05 1986 (SC)

Harbhajan Singh Dhalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1987SC9; (1987)1CompLJ76(SC); 1986(2)SCALE728; (1986)4SCC678; [1987]1SCR114; 1987(1)LC43(SC)

..... different namely (a) the government found no prima facie ground and (b) the claim was outside the provisions of section 86 of the cpc. the second ground now stated is patently erroneous and contradictory to the ground mentioned in the letter dated 26th november, 1983. one should have thought that the political relationship between the two countries would be better served ..... are intended to save the foreign states from harassment which would be caused by the institution of a suit but except in cases where the claim appears to be frivulous patently, the central government should normally accord consent or give sanction against foreign states unless there are cogent political and other reasons. normally, however, it is not the function of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 29 1986 (SC)

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Calcutta Vs. Mrs. O.M.M. Kinnison (Dead), ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-29-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC2019; [1986]161ITR824(SC); 1986(2)SCALE355; (1986)4SCC297; [1986]3SCR674

..... the assessee was entitled to on the valuation dates was the right to have the trust administered and, as the high court has observed, having regard to the several considerations patent in this case that the settlement was an english settlement created by an englishman who was resident in england, that it was an english will proved in england and the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 26 1986 (SC)

Girdhari Lal and Sons Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-26-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1499; 1986(1)SCALE272; (1986)2SCC237; [1986]1SCR383

..... from the rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. there need be no neek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. to avoid patent injustice, anomaly or absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be well justified in departing from the so-called golden rule of construction so as to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 1986 (SC)

K.R. Mudgal and ors. Vs. R.P. Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-30-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC2086; JT1986(1)SC597; (1987)ILLJ214SC; 1986(2)SCALE561; (1986)4SCC531; [1986]3SCR993; 1987(1)SLJ221(SC); 1987(1)LC223(SC)

..... writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge. aggrieved by the decision of the learned single judge, the petitioners in the writ petition filed an appeal in the letters patent appeal no. 6 of 1978 before a division bench of the high court. the division bench allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single judge and held .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 1986 (SC)

Surinder Singh Vs. Central Government and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-26-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC2166; 1986(2)SCALE550; (1986)4SCC667; [1986]3SCR946

..... to the authorities to finalise the auction sale held in their favour on january 17, 1969. a learned single judge after hearing the parties dismissed the petition. on a letters patent appeal a division bench of the high court allowed the appeal set aside the order of the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition, and quashed the order of shri .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1986 (SC)

D.K. Trivedi and Sons and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1323a; (1986)2GLR1250; 1986(1)SCALE1133; 1986Supp(1)SCC20; [1986]1SCR479; 1986(2)LC301(SC)

..... 706 and 1934 of 1981 are directed against the judgment of the division bench of the gujarat high court delivered on september 16-17, 1980, in letters patent appeal no. 61 of 1978 - ambalal manibhai patel v. the state of gujarat and anr. and connected writ petitions. these appeals are accordingly partly allowed ..... minor minerals was void as offending the prohibition contained in the proviso to section 15(3). (17) the judgment of the gujarat high court in letters patent appeal no. 61 of 1978 - ambalal manibhai patel v. the state of gujarat and anr., and connected writ petitions is wrong to the extent ..... the leased are at the rates respectively specified against them in column 2 of the said schedule. as mentioned earlier, the gujarat high court in letters patent appeal no. 61 of 1978 - ambalal manibhai patel v. the state of gujarat and anr. and other connected writ petitions held that the 1974 ..... writ petitions which challenged the 1979 notification. the said letters patent appeal and writ petitions were allowed by a division bench consisting of sheth and nanavati, jj. the division bench held that the conditions in a ..... by the 1976 notification. this writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of that high court on february 16, 1978. the letters patent appeal filed against the judgment and order of the learned single judge was heard by a division bench of that high court along with twenty-five .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1986 (SC)

Ambalal Manibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1620; 1989Supp(2)SCC362

..... in the high court challenging the validity of the said notification dated march 26, 1979, so far as the enhancement of the dead rent was concerned. the appellant's letters patent appeals as also those writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment reported as smt. sonbai pentalji v. state of gujarat (1980) 2 (21) 2 guj lr ..... appellant's writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the high court. thereupon, the appellant filed a letters patent appeal against the said order of dismissal being letters patent appeal no. 62 of 1978. while the said letters patent appeal was pending, the government of gujarat issued a notification dated march 26, 1979, whereby it made the gujarat minor minerals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 06 1986 (SC)

G.K. Dudani and ors. Vs. S.D. Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1455; (1987)1GLR70; 1986LabIC1454; 1986(1)SCALE1374; 1986Supp(1)SCC239; [1986]2SCR250

..... this contention and had held that the appointments of the promoters between 1961 and 1963 were regular. though this point was taken in the memorandum of appeal in the letters patent appeal filed by the direct recruits, the division bench which heard this appeal did not disturb this finding nor was this finding upset in chauhan's case. on the contrary ..... as it was practicable and, therefore, the promotions of mamlatdars made between 1961 and 1963 were regular. the direct recruits thereupon filed a letters patent appeal being letters patent appeal no. 113 of 1974. in the said letters patent appeal the direct recruits contended that the promoters had not been appointed in substantive vacancies, but were appointed in such vacancies only on the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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