Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: delhi Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 74 results (0.077 seconds)

May 14 1980 (HC)

Ramesh Suri Vs. Custodian General of Evacuee Property and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-14-1980

Reported in : 18(1980)DLT454

..... to account for his share of royalty. the arrangement thus was, as noticed in werderman v. sociate generale delectricite (1881) xix gh. d. 246 at 253 that the owners of patent (in this case the copyright) would work it to the best advantage, to keep proper accounts and to. pay a share of profits to the owner. thus if no royalty ..... bankrupt owner or in the custodian under the legislation dealing with the enemy property. in noveilow and co. ltd. v. hinrichsen edition and another 1951 (2)ch.d. 457 the patents, designs, copyright and trade marks (emergency) act, 1939, permitted the controller to grant license in the copyright belonging to an enemy who is subject .to restrictions imposed under trading with ..... rajindar sachar, j.(1) this is letters patent appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which he dismissed the writ petition and held that the right to receive royalty vested in the custodian on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 1980 (HC)

Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-01-1980

Reported in : [1981]127ITR746(Delhi)

..... states and canada, apparatus and material so manufactured by the assessed under the licenses granted under this article. the licenses were to manufacture apparatus and material covered by patents and patent rights administered by westinghouse with the help of the information furnished from time to time by westinghouse to the assessed. the licenses, however, did not include any right ..... by the associated companies in the u.s.a. westinghouse was willing to license the assessed under patents and patent rights and technical information administered by it. 3. article i of the agreement provided that the term of the agreement, and of any and all licenses and rights ..... the spread over of expenditure incurred after february 28, 1966, and, secondly, because the expenditure under consideration could not be said to be expenditure for the acquisition of patent rights as required by the section. 18. having held that the amount was rightly disallowed as capital expenditure the tribunal also proceeded to express its opinion on the ..... manufacturing and other information of the associated companies. the above agreement which became effective from may 21, 1962, was promoted by the desire of the assessed to obtain patent rights, rights under technical manufacturing and other information and services necessary to enable it to manufacture, use and sell certain types of electrical and other apparatus and material manufactured .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 25 1980 (HC)

Surendra Lal Mahendra Vs. JaIn Glazers and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-25-1980

Reported in : ILR1981Delhi257

..... embodied in the patented apparatus. in other words wet laminating apparatus being already known and used in india previous to priority date there was no inventive step and there was no novelty ..... apparatus/device when he applied for registration of the patent. according to them the complete specification furnished by the plaintiff is vogue, unintelligible and jugglery of words. thus the specification does not state what is the modified construction ..... laminating system from morane maxibond machine and specification and has falsely claimed to be an inventor of the said appalatus. further the plaintiff has not disclosed in the patent specification as to what was the laminating apparatus already available and what was the modification and distinct improvement made and utility imparted by the plaintiff to the existing ..... interim injunction concisely are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their ser- vants, or agents etc. from infringing in any manner, patent no. 143964 dated 21st july, 1976 entitled 'laminating apparatus' of which he claims to be proprietor and patentee, by manufacture, sale or offering for sale or using .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 1980 (HC)

B. Chawla and Sons Vs. Bright Auto Industries

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-21-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Delhi95; 19(1981)DLT323; 1981RLR373

..... simmons v. mathieson & cold (1911) 28 r.p.c. 486 in these words : 'inorder to render valid the registration of a design under the patents and designs act, 1907, there must be novelty and originality, it must be a new or original design. to my mind, that means that there must ..... single and most familiar article of dress like this, which constitutes novelty of design. , hold that would be no paralyse industry 'and to make the patents, designs and trade marks act a trap to catch honest traders. there must be, nor a mere novelty of outline, but a substantial novelty in the ..... following grounds, namely............ (iii) that the design is not a new or original design.'(6) it may also be mentioned that rule 36 of the indian patents & designs rules, 1933, provides that the applicant may, and shall, if required by the controller in any case so to do endorse on the application ..... that such designs were common in the market and the appellants had made a false claim to be the originators of the design before the controller of patents & designs to obtain the impugned registration. the grievance is that they were hindered in their trade by the registration. (3) the appellants controverter these ..... the design of m/s. b. chawla & sons, hereinafter referred to as the appellants in respect of mirror registered at no. 139585 in class i under the indian patents & design act, 1911 (the act), on february 28, 1972, is a 'new or original' design. (2) m/s. bright auto industries, hereinafter referred to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 1980 (HC)

Electrical Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. D.D. Bhargava

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-29-1980

Reported in : 17(1980)DLT251

..... have been received either on the 7th or 8th of december, 1962. the only doubt is with regard to whichofthesetwodatesitwasreceived.in any case,this is not material as it is patent, that the file was with the chief commissioner on 8th december, 1962 when he wrote the word 'sanctioned' and signed it. (13) with regard to his alternate contention, mr. a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 30 1980 (HC)

Custodian of Evacuee Property Vs. Qabool Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-30-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Delhi183; 17(1980)DLT515; 1980RLR500

..... into consideration in determining the commencement of the running of the period under article 181 of the limitation act. (5) the custodian of evacuee property has filed the present letters patent appeal. it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the basis of the judgment of the single judge is that the custodian does not have an independent title and ..... b.n. kirpal, j.(1) the property in question in this letterg patent appeal being property no. xii/6556 to 6572/4613 situated in mughal- pura, subzi mandi, delhi, was mortgaged by one mohd. ismail, respondent no. 9. at the instance of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Krishna Devi Nigam and ors. Vs. Shyam Babu Gupta and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Delhi165; 17(1980)DLT344; 1980(1)DRJ33; 1980RLR215

..... section 14(1)(e) of the rent act. in interpreting section 25a of the rent act in sarwan singh's case the court has thus to say that 'it is patent that by virtue of the first part of section 25a, the provisions of chapter iiia must prevail over the provisions of section 54 of the delhi rent act. the reason .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Nasur-ud-dIn Vs. State Transport Authority and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Delhi9; ILR1980Delhi1047

v.s. deshpande, j. (1) the decision of this appeal turns upon the true distinction between the substantive part of sub-section (3) of section 63 of the motor vehicles act, 1939 (the act), and the relevant part of the proviso thereto. since they are to be carefully read, they are reproduced below: 'theprovisions of this chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits : 'provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in section 57 for the grant or countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one state are required to be countersigned by the state transport authority of another state or the regional transport authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the states. . . 'the petitioner-appellant is the holder of an inter-state stage carriage permit no. 1627 to ply between ghaziabad, u.p., and delhi issued by the regional transport authority, meerut, (rta). u.p., his application to the state transport authority, delhi, for countersignatures necessary for the operation of the inter-state route was rejected by the said authority on 13th november, 1975 on the ground that though 30 inter-state permits in all were to be issued and countersigned on this route and the permit holders had to be from u.p. and delhi in the proportion agreed between the two states, in fact there was no vacancy on the route inasmuch as all .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Gian Singh Vs. Chief Settlement Commissioner

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : 17(1980)DLT349

v.s. deshpande, c.j.(1) the appellant before us had filed a writ petition for quashing the order dated 11th january, 1963 passed by mr. gulab l. ajwani, additional settlement commissioner, (with delegated powers of the chief settlement commissioner) purporting to reject the claim of the appellant for allotment of agricultural land in delhi, on the ground that the appellant was of punjabi extraction (an agriculturist from sindh as also west punjab now in pakistan), and was not entitled to allotment of agricultural land non the basis of a verified claim in delhi under rule 64 (a) of the displaced persons (compensation & reha.bilitation) rules, 1955. the writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge. hence this appeal. rule 64 is as below : 'any land owner whose claim was registered under the east punjab refugees (registration of claims) act, 1948 (east punjab act viii of 1948) or under the patiala refugees (registration of land claims) ordinance, 2004 b.k. (ordinance no. x of 2004 bk) and who has been allotted land outside the states of punjab and patiala and east punjab state union shall be governed by the provisions hereinafter contained in this rule : (a) if such person had refused allotment of land made to him in the state of punjab or the patiala and east punjab states union, he shall be treated as a displaced person having no claim in respect of agricultural land and accordingly the provisions of rules 62 and 63 shall apply to him. provided that any person who .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

A.R. Josri Vs. the State Bank of India, New Delhi

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : 17(1980)DLT518

prakash narain, j. (1) the main question which arises for determination is whether employees of the state bank of india entitled to involve the principles of natural justice and claim that reasonable opportunity should be granted to them before their services are terminated by way of punishment. a subsidiary question that arises is the interpretation to be put on the relevant rules in this case known as the state bank of india (sub-accountams and head cashiers) service rules. (2) the appellant was employed by the erstwhile imperial bank of india as a cashier and teller on december 24, 1951. he was . confirmed in that post with effect from january 1, 1953. the state bank of india act, 1955 was passed by the parliament with intent. inter alia, to transfer to the state bank of india the undertaking of the imperial bank of india. the services of the existing officers and employees of the imperial bank of india stood transferred to the state bank of india. that is how the appellant became an employee of the state bank of india. (3) the appellant was promoted to the post of head cashier and posted to dalhousie in august, 1963. in 1967 the bank authorities found that the appellant had permitted drawings without adequate stock to two firms. in other words, there was not sufficient security ensured by the appellant for granting drawing facilities to the said parties. according to the bank the appellant thus acted beyond the scope of his authority. accordingly, the appellant was placed .....

Tag this Judgment!


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