Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 8 of about 108 results (0.071 seconds)

Nov 02 2004 (SC)

Dharma Prathishthanam Vs. Madhok Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-02-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC214; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)114; 2004(3)BLJR2295; 2004(5)CTC442; JT2004(9)SC335; (2005)1MLJ70(SC); RLW2005(1)SC151; 2004(9)SCALE205; (2005)9SCC686

..... period of limitation if the court finds that the award is void or directs a party to do an act which is prohibited by law or is without jurisdiction or patently illegal. we need not multiply the number of authorities on this point as an exhaustive and illuminating conspectus of judicial opinion is found to be contained in law of arbitration .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 23 2004 (SC)

Shyam Oil Cake Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-23-2004

Reported in : 2004(97)ECC465; 2004(174)ELT145(SC); JT2004(10)SC518; (2005)2MLJ75(SC); 2004(9)SCALE641; (2005)1SCC264

..... , the separation of salt from earth or other substance so as to produce elementary salt, and the excavation or removal of natural saline deposits or efflorescence;(iii) in relation to patent or proprietary medicines as defined in item no. 14e of the first schedule and in relation to cosmetics and toilet preparations as defined in item no. 14f of that schedule .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 29 2004 (SC)

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Nov-29-2004

Reported in : I(2005)ACC51; AIR2005SC446; 2005(1)AWC220(SC); JT2004(10)SC173; 2004(10)SCALE28b; (2005)1SCC444

..... the view taken by the high court that the draft scheme dated 13.2.1986 had lapsed by virtue of sub-section (4) of section 100 of 1988 act, is patently erroneous as the said provision would apply only to a scheme which had been published under sub-section (1)of section 100 of the act and can have no application .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2004 (SC)

Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Collector Land Acquisition, Tehsil ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-10-2004

Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)205; 2005(1)AWC3(SC); 2005(1)CTC472; JT2004(10)SC513; 2005(2)MhLj557; (2005)141PLR22; 2004(10)SCALE365; (2005)1SCC553

..... . the single judge also increased the rate of interest to 6% per annum instead of 4% as directed by the district judge. the appellant still being dissatisfied moved a letters patent appeal before the high court claiming compensation @ rs. 8000/- per kanal in respect of land and rs. 75000/- for trees. the appeal was dismissed by the high court and thus .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 07 2004 (SC)

Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Vicco Laboratories

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-07-2004

Reported in : 2005(179)ELT17(SC); (2005)4SCC17

..... essential oils and resinoids; perfumery cosmetics and toilet preparations. the period in question is october, 1996 up to june, 1997.2. the respondent's products were initially classified as 'a patent or proprietary medicine not containing alcohol, opium, indian hemp or other narcotic drugs or other narcotics other than those medicines which are exclusively ayurvedic, unani, sidha or homeopathic under tariff .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2004 (SC)

Thiagarajan and ors. Vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-16-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1913; 2004(4)ALD8(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)446; 2004(2)AWC1988(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN161; 2004(2)CTC354; [2004(2)JCR296(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC54; 2004(2)KLT358(SC); (2004

..... formulated by the high court. since the high court has not adverted to the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission, the high court has committed a patent error in disposing of the second appeal. it was argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the high court while formulating substantial questions of law at a later stage .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 2004 (SC)

MaIn Pal and anr. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC2158; 2004CriLJ2036; JT2004(4)SC273; 2004(4)SCALE178; (2004)10SCC692

..... unusual manner that really is not determinative because different persons react differently even in similar situations.10. on a bare perusal of the trial court's judgment one thing is patently noticeable. the trial court has merely referred to the arguments advanced and has then come to abrupt conclusions without even indicating any plausible or relevant reasons, therefore. merely coming to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

Hira Tikkoo Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3648; JT2004(5)SC231; 2004(4)SCALE468; (2004)6SCC765

..... 161 consentees gave their affidavits. some of the non-consentees again approached the high court challenging the new industrial policy of 1990 by filing fresh petitions and others filed letters patent appeals. in their petitions and appeals, they insisted on grant of relief of directing delivery of possession of the original plots allotted to them. the filing of this petition and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2004 (SC)

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Devendra Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3690; 2004CriLJ3118; JT2004(Suppl1)SC186; 2004(4)SCALE577; (2004)10SCC616

..... to the inevitable conclusion that the accused was responsible for the rape and murder of the victim. though the judgment under challenge is one of acquittal, in view of the patently perverse conclusions arrived at by the high court, the same is indefensible and is set aside. the conviction as recorded by the trial court and the sentences imposed are restored .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 03 2004 (SC)

The State of Kerala Etc. Etc. Vs. Arya Refrigeration and a/C Co. Etc. ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Aug-03-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC3938; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)940; 2004(2)ARBLR556(SC); 2004(3)AWC2581(SC); 98(2004)CLT694(SC); 2004(3)KLT516(SC); 2004(6)SCALE429; (2004)7SCC546; [2004]54SCL579(SC)

..... interference with the reasoned award is extremely limited. nothing has been shown to show that the arbitrator overlooked any relevant piece of material or that the award suffered from any patent illegality.7. though there was some dispute about the applicability of the act in view of the accepted position at all stages that the act applied to the proceedings, such .....

Tag this Judgment!


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