Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: mumbai Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 33 results (0.028 seconds)

Dec 04 1980 (HC)

Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Dec-04-1980

Reported in : [1982]136ITR746(Bom); [1981]7TAXMAN85(Bom)

..... a limited period of the technical knowledge of the swiss company with the right to use to patents and trade marks of that company. the assessee acquired under the agreement merely the right to draw, for the purposes of carrying on its business ..... the india i.t. act, 1922. the assessee did not under the agreement become entitled exclusively even for the period of the agreement, to the patents and trade marks of the swiss company, it had merely filed which the swiss company commenced. the assessee was on that account a mere licence for ..... of the products made and sold by the assessee-company, the fee being subject to indian taxes, if any. (c) for the right to use the patents and the inscription 'license-grasso' as described in clause 15, the assessee-company will pay to the said grasso a royalty of 2% on the 'net ..... previous written consent of the other party. by cl. 8 both the parties agreed to give each other a free licence of existing and future patents in the filed of the products mentioned in cl. 1 of the said agreement. by cl. 9, the assessee undertook to start the manufacture of ..... scientific and technical knowledge and information, know-how, engineering date, calculations, drawings, designs, material specification, experience and continuous development with the benefit of all patents held by the said grasso in connection with products described in cl. 1 of the said agreement. the objection of the said agreement which has been described .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 1980 (HC)

Zenna Sorabji and ors. Vs. Mirabelle Hotel Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-14-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom446

..... year 1965. it is obvious that till the year 1965 when defendant no. i surrendered the tenancy to the plaintiffs, defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 were acting in patent collusion with each other. significantly enough the bills are produced only for the period till january 1963. it is evident that at least till that time defendants nos. 1 and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 1980 (HC)

Talakchand Jayachand Doshi and ors. Vs. Bhaichand Gautamchand Doshi an ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-16-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom19; 1981MhLJ931

..... the opinion that the present darkhast is not wholly barred by limitation and it must be proceeded with for recovering all monies due from 10th dec., 1956.12. the letters patent appeal thus fails substantially. the decree-holder has failed only to the extent of about three instalments, between september and dec. 1956. in view of this fact, the appellants must ..... mentioned above, was dismissed by vaidya j. by his judgment and order dated 12th aug., 1975. it is this order that is the subject-matter of challenge in this letters patent appeal.4. mr. pinge, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants who are the legal representatives of the original judgment-debtor, has raised several points in this appeal. in the ..... by the respondents in this appeal. the appellants are the judgment-debtors and having failed both before the executing court and before vaidya j., they have now preferred this letters patent appeal.2. in special civil suit no. 60 of 1953 filed in the court of the civil judge, senior division at solapur, one bhaichand gautamchand doshi obtained a decree based ..... jahagirdar, j.1. this letters patent appeal seeks to challenge the order of vaidya j. dated 12th of aug., 1975 by which he dismissed first appeal no. 153 of 1971 preferred by the appellants in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 1980 (HC)

Rango Laxman Pingle Vs. Kumudini Chandrakant Pethkar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-17-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom220; 1980MhLJ605

..... were required to be registered was effected only in the year 1929. hence the decree which was passed in 1922 does not require registration.11. as a result, the letters patent appeals are allowed. the judgment of the learned single judge d/- 17-2-1975, in first appeal no. 368 of 1974 is set aside and the order issued under order ..... manohar, j.1. the appellants in the two letters patent appeals are the son and grandsons of one laxman pingle. on or about 2nd march, 1922 a special civil suit no. 341 of 1922 was filed by khanderao mehendale against .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Tejoomal Lakhmichand Vs. M.J. Talegaonkar and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Bom369

..... promised or of money or other thing of value to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms, patently, a lease is a contract whereunder the transferee accepts certain obligations. the transferee, or lessee or tenant, must, therefore, be one who is capable of contracting. an unregistered association is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 1980 (HC)

Nivrutti Nana Waghmare Vs. Narayan Mahadeo Mokal and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Bom250

..... for setting aside the ex parta decree.'mr. shah appearing for the respondent has candidly conceded before me that the reference in the said judgment to appa bhima is a patent error because admittedly the so-called obstructionist against whom obstructionist notice was taken out by the respondent was appabhiva and not appa bhima. appa bhima was no doubt a tenant .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1980 (HC)

Shyamkant Wamanrao Pawar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-19-1980

Reported in : 1980CriLJ1388

..... to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath and if this is not done, then obviously the order passed issuing the process is patently in violation of the mandatory requirements of the proviso to section 202(2) of the criminal procedure code. in this view of the matter, we have no other alternative but to quash .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 1980 (HC)

Anil Anantrao Lokhande Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-20-1980

Reported in : 1981CriLJ125; 1980MhLJ849

..... to the medical examination by a medical practitioner for the purpose of extraction of blood from their persons. the orders passed by the two magistrates in the present petitions were patently illegal and without jurisdiction and were rightly set aside by the learned additional sessions judge'.30. it is quite clear from these observations that it was not necessary for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 22 1980 (HC)

Sandoz (India) Limited, Bombay Vs. Sandoz Employees Union

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-22-1980

Reported in : (1981)ILLJ71Bom

..... a strike notice can be amended from time to time or the date extended subsequently. it is alleged that the postponement of the commencement date from time to time is patently illegal, void and against the provisions of the act defining the valid notice. it is further urged that assuming that the date of commencement of strike can be postponed by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 1980 (HC)

The Shipping Development Fund Committee Vs. M.V. Charisma and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Feb-28-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom42

..... there is no mention of the provisions of the 1861 act or the letters patent.10. i have pondered over the question whether the ship mortgagor would be in a more onerous position if the ship mortgagee were required to file the ..... 9. i see no implied repugnance between the provisions of the 1958 act on the one hand and clause 11 of the 1861 act read with the letters patent, clause 32, on the other hand. i may mention that though the 1958 act provides a list in its schedule of the enactments which it repeals ..... repeal by the 1958 act of provisions of clause 11 of the 1861 act in so far as it applied to this court under clause 32 of the letters patent.6. it will be noted, first, that there are very many high courts in this country which exercise no ordinary original civil jurisdiction. it will be ..... high court of admiralty in england under statute or otherwise. that jurisdiction this court continues to exercise by virtue of the provisions of clause 32 of the letters patent, 1865. in 1894 the merchant shipping act was re-enacted in england. section 31 thereof gave to the ship-mortgage power to sell the mortgage security without ..... repugnancy between the aforementioned sections of that statute and the provisions of section 11 of the 1861 act read with clause 32 of the letters patent. there was, it was said, a direct conflict between the aforementioned provisions of the 1958 act and those of the 1861 act and of the letters .....

Tag this Judgment!


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