Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: chennai Year: 1977 Page 2 of about 23 results (0.025 seconds)

Jul 20 1977 (HC)

indo French Pharmaceutical Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-20-1977

Reported in : 1978(2)ELT478(Mad)

..... indicate the manufacturer's name and this cannot be taken to indicate a connection between the medicine and its manufacture. if that is so, every medicinal preparation will automatically become patent or proprietary medicine as defined in the explanation in addition to the manufacturer's name some other symbol mark, monogram or label has been used by the manufacturer to indicate ..... its container a name or a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or any writing to indicate a connection between the medicine and the manufacturer, it will become a patent or proprietary medicine. a close reading of the explanation, however, in my view indicates that the marks, symbols, monogram, label, signature or other words which are used in the medicinal ..... be levied under rule.173q of the central excise rules. in answer to the said show cause notice, the petitioner represented that the said three preparations are not proprietary or patent medicines as two of them were preparations under the indian pharmacopoeia and one of them was a preparation under the u.s. pharmacopoeia and therefore, they will not come under ..... having the right either as proprietor or otherwise, to use the name or mark.7. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the three medicinal preparations will not become patent or proprietary medicines under the definition given in the explanation. according to the learned counsel for the respondent, however, explanation 1 gives an extended definition of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 26 1977 (HC)

Jayaramachandra Iyer Vs. Thulasi Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-26-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Mad95

..... his self-acquired property and not joint family property. the appeal by the plaintiff before this court having failed, he has come up before this court by way of letters patent appeal. 2. on behalf of the appellant counsel contended that there was clear evi-dence available in the case about the existence of sufficient nucleus for the acquisition of item .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 1977 (HC)

Shantilal Paramshankar Joshi, Sole Prop., Espee and Co. Vs. themis Dis ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-02-1977

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ213

..... and ask in the alternative for damages based on the profits which the infringers could have obtained by making a wrongfully use of the plaintiff's patent. the learned trial judge exercised his discretion and granted' this alternative prayer. we have had occasion to consider the import of such a request by ..... a time when there was no statutory provision is pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant. but for section 60 of the english patents act 1949, and even the general law as is applied and accepted in india, probably this argument is attractive. but, we cannot brush aside ..... and directing that on the plaintiff paying the court-fee due on that ascertained amount there would be a decree declaring the validity of the plaintiff's patent. the matter was again posted, after delivery of the judgment, for certain clarifications. once again the learned judge on 8th april, 1974, after ..... trial and after looking into the oral and documentary evidence, that the plaintiff was the true and first inventor of the product and that the patent claimed by the plaintiff was already known in india. on a comparison of the material objects placed before him viz., the one invented by the ..... by the defendants or loss suffered by the plaintiff by manufacturing and/or selling and/or using since the defendants commenced infringement thereof; during the patent period of such profits by the defendants or loss suffered by the plaintiff by ordering payment of such sums as the hon'ble court may .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1977 (HC)

Ganeshmal Maggaji by His Power Agent Roopchand Maggaji Vs. the Central ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-11-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ287

..... applicable. such inconsistent and inconceivable variations and consequences which result from no fault or omission or act of the licensee cannot be the basis for interpreting the provisions which are patently different one from the other. it is in such circumstances that recourse has to be had to the rule of harmonious construction. we will have to say in what circumstances .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 28 1977 (HC)

Doraiswami Vs. Rathnammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-28-1977

Reported in : AIR1978Mad78; (1978)1MLJ456

..... comparison of her signature found in the will with that in the mortgage deed, the appellant has chosen to file an application for reception of additional evidence in this letters patent appeal. but we are of the view that in view of the provisions of order 41, rule 27 it is not possible to permit the appellant to adduce additional evidence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 1977 (HC)

Rajanarayanaperumal Temple, by Its Executive Officer Vs. Rethinam Pill ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-14-1977

Reported in : (1979)1MLJ159

..... civil court (till patta proceedings are over), there is no provision in the act and the bench which decided the letters patent appeal has not referred to any provision nor has it given any reason. hence the decision in the letters patent appeal, for postponing a decision by the civil court, regarding title, should be held to be confined to the facts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 08 1977 (HC)

Chikkaraj Vs. K.N. Viswanathan

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-08-1977

Reported in : AIR1979Mad103

..... grant of an absolute estate in favour of veeraperumal ammal."the learned judges thus agreed with rajamannar j. as he then was, whose judgment they were considering in a letters patent appeal. the observations made in that decision have to be held to be applicable to the facts of the particular case and the nature of the gift deed which came ..... issues."14. a clause in a partition arrangement in tamil came up for interpretation before ramachandra iyer c. j. and venkatadri j. in ramaswami chetti v. venkatammal, , in a letters patent appeal which arose from the judgment of veeraswami j. as he then was, and when freely translated read thus (at p. 194) :-"we have agreed that the properties set out ..... deed that the appellants should take the properties absolutely on the death of kunne gounder is repugnant and void.20. the result is that the appellants succeed and these letters patent appeals are allowed with costs throughout. advocate's fee one set.21. appeals allowed. ..... 1. these letters patent appeal have been preferred against the judgment of n. s. ramaswami j. in a. a. o. 177 of 1975 and 183 of 1975 respectively.2. the appeals before the learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 14 1977 (HC)

C.V. Ramaswami Naidu and ors. Vs. C.S. Shyamala Devi and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-14-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ505

paul, j.1. o.s.a. no. 81 of 1975 is an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent against the judgment and decree of the learned single judge on the original side of this court in c.s. no. 16 of 1972. a.s. no. 615 of 1973 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 1977 (HC)

S. Jabaperumal Vs. Central Bank of India, a Body Corporate Wholly Owne ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Dec-13-1977

Reported in : (1978)1MLJ312

..... , or any debt due to any corporation formed in pursuance of an act of parliament (of the united kingdom) or of any special indian law or rayal charter or letters patent.the point to be examined is whether the central bank is a bank formed in pursuance of any special indian law. the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1977 (HC)

G. Balakrishnan and Brothers P. Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-23-1977

Reported in : [1978]41STC450(Mad)

..... authorising introduction of an error in the course of proceedings for rectification of another error. the fetters on the jurisdiction to rectify so as to confine the jurisdiction only to patent errors which did not involve any doubt or dispute will not apply to the consequential issues that flow from the application for rectification being accepted. the same result follows even .....

Tag this Judgment!


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