Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: old Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 9 of about 108 results (0.091 seconds)

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 01 2004 (SC)

Deb Narayan Shyam and ors. Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-01-2004

Reported in : 2005(1)ESC90; [2005(104)FLR843]; JT2004(10)SC320; 2004(10)SCALE124; (2005)2SCC286; 2005(2)SLJ264(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC571

..... not be treated as precedent. but unfortunately, this judgment has been followed by the high court in remaining 36 cases and to the utter negligence of the state government, letter patent appeals filed were withdrawn. however, subsequently the division bench put the matter in proper prospective holding that earlier q1judgment cannot be treated as precedent and it cannot decide the rights ..... that the posts of amins and surveyors are similar and the high court proceeded to give directions to give the pay scales of the surveyors. the state government filed letters patent appeals in some of the cases before the division bench and there also the state government did not pursue those appeals. some of them were withdrawn and some other were .....

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!

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!

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 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!


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