Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 11 of about 108 results (0.140 seconds)

Dec 17 2004 (SC)

Employers, Management of Central P and D Inst. Ltd. Vs. Union of India ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC633; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)287; 2005(1)AWC618(SC); 2005(1)BLJR130; (2005)2CALLT89(SC); [2005(104)FLR373]; [2005(1)JCR129(SC)]; JT2005(1)SC148; (2005)ILLJ552SC; (2005)9SC

..... the writ petition. however while confirming the order of reinstatement it set aside the direction to pay back wages @ 50% of the salary last drawn. the management filed a letters patent appeal before the appellate bench of the said court. however, the same was dismissed and now the management is in appeal before us.5. from the previous orders of this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2004 (SC)

Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and anr. Vs. Munna Lal Jain

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC584; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)329; 2005(1)AWC561(SC); 2005(3)ESC338; [2005(104)FLR291]; JT2005(1)SC70; (2005)ILLJ730SC; (2005)10SCC84; 2005(2)SLJ117(SC); 2005(1)LC430(SC);

..... single judge further held that the factum of illness of the wife had not been proved as no documents had been filed.4. the matter was carried in a letters patent appeal before the division bench. it was stand of the employee before the division bench that the money was withdrawn because of an emergency and he had some of money .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2004 (SC)

The Management of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Chief Inspectin ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)BLJR460; 2005(3)ESC458; [2005(104)FLR329]; [2005(2)JCR171(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC449; (2005)ILLJ722SC; (2005)9SCC605

a.k. mathur, j.1. both these appeals raise common question of law, therefore they are disposed off by this common order.civil appeal no. 37 of 19982. this appeal is directed against an order passed by the division bench of the patna high court dated february 14, 1997 whereby the division bench of the high court held that the tata main hospital at jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'hospital') is an establishment within the meaning of section 2(6) of the bihar shops and establishments act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'act') and it is covered by the aforesaid act. aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal has been filed by the appellant.3. brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the hospital was established by the management of tata iron & steel company ltd in the year 1908 for providing medical facilities to the employees as well as their families and dependent of the company, and its associated companies namely, telco, tata yodogawa, tata robin fraser and their employees at jamshedpur. it is also alleged that apart from catering for the employees of the appellant and its associated industries it also caters for the government employees on payment of charges about rs.50/- per day and from other private patients at the rate of rs.120/- per day. it is alleged that 75 % of the patients treated are either employees of the appellant or its associated companies or family members of the employees of the appellant or its .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2004 (SC)

Divisional Manager, Plantation Division, Andaman and Nicobar Islands V ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2004

Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)212; 2005(1)AWC605(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN74; 2005(3)ESC335; [2005(104)FLR375]; [2005(1)JCR220(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC530; (2005)ILLJ557SC; (2005)2SCC237; 2005(

..... respondent-workmen were proved beyond doubts. i, therefore, do not incline to interfere with the impugned award passed by the tribunal. i, accordingly, dismiss this writ petition.'8. a letters patent appeal there against was preferred before the division bench which was barred by limitation, as a delay of 103 days occurred in filing the same. as indicated hereinbefore, the delay ..... of 2001 (m.a.t. no. 12 of 2001) whereby and whereunder an application for condonation of 103 days' delay in filing an appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent of the calcutta high court was not condoned as also an order dated 10.10.2001 passed by another bench of the said high court refusing to review the said .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 17 2004 (SC)

Radhika Kapur and ors. Vs. D.L.F., Universal Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-17-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC646; (2005)3CompLJ18(SC); JT2005(1)SC104; [2005]57SCL301(SC)

..... impugned order of the commission. in declining to grant the relief of possession by way of interim measure, the commission cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error or patent illegality. there is no perversity, nor irrelevant reasoning which makes the impugned order vulnerable to attack. no irreparable damage is caused to the appellants by declining the mandatory injunction to .....

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 14 2004 (SC)

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-14-2004

Reported in : AIR2005SC437; JT2004(10)SC374; (2005)139PLR475; (2005)1SCC604; [2005]139STC200(SC)

orders.n. variava, j.1. these appeals are against the judgment dated 31st august 1998 of the punjab and haryana high court.2. briefly stated the facts are as follows.the first respondent is a spinning mill, which claimed benefit of notification issued by the punjab government on 23rd november 1979. as the decision in this case depends on the notification it is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience :-'the 23 rd november, 1979.no.s.o.82/p.a.46/48/s.5/amd./79. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the punjab general sales tax act, 1948 (punjab act no.46 of 1948) and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the governor of punjab is pleased to make the following further amendment in the punjab government excise and taxation department notification no.s.o.26/p.a./46/s.5/72 dated the 10th august, 1972 namely :- amendmentin the said notification, after the proviso to item 4, the following further proviso shall be added, namely;-provided further that the rate of purchase tax on cotton shall be two paise in a rupee on the purchases made by the textile mills established on or after the first december, 1979 for a period of five years to be reckoned from the aforesaid date subject to the following conditions:-(i)that these mills shall start production by 31st december 1981; and (ii)that these mills shall not despatch yarn in the course of inter-state transaction on consignment basis or through ex-state commission agents.' 3. initially, the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 2004 (SC)

Sarabhai M. Chemicals Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-16-2004

Reported in : 2004(97)ECC729; 2005(179)ELT3(SC); (2005)2SCC168

..... bench to decide the question on merits. in the circumstances, it was urged that the impugned majority decision dated 11.1.1999 dismissing the appeals, without going into merits, was patently erroneous. 13. on the question of applicability of the exemption notification, mr. ravindra narain, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant had obtained a certificate ..... is on merits and other is on limitation.12. mr. ravindra narain, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted, at the outset, that, the impugned majority decision was patently erroneous. in this connection, it was urged that the j.m. had decided the question of limitation in favour of the appellant holding the demands to be time barred and .....

Tag this Judgment!


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