Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: gujarat Year: 2001 Page 1 of about 83 results (0.006 seconds)

Apr 10 2001 (HC)

Satish Maganlal Vora Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Apr-10-2001

Reported in : (2001)3GLR2192

..... and alcohol which the appellant uses and raises the octane level. it was stated by his learned counsel that the appellant had even applied for a patent under patents act, 1970, but the concerned authority returned his application (which was shown to the court) for want of details of the process. however, since ..... the garb of an invented commodity. an invention is a new method, an instrument or device which is created by thought, one for which a patent can be granted. invention cannot be understood in the sense of concoction of a false story, invented to circumvent the statutory provisions enacted to ensure ..... a process for producing such substance (clause f); will not be considered to be inventions. that what is not an invention for the purpose of patents law cannot be consecrated as an invention by the court. otherwise, what the law denounces so very specifically by stating that an invention the use ..... did not want to disclose his trade secret formally, he did not apply again. 18.1 the word 'invention' is defined under section 2(j) of the patent act, which means any new and useful (i) art, process, method or manner of manufacture; (ii) machine, apparatus or other articles; (iii) substance produced ..... torture and agony to him by the impugned action of the respondents. 2.2 in special civil application no. 9076 of 2000 from which the letters patent appeal no. 692 of 2000 arises (in the title of which writ petition, the appellant had also mentioned special civil application no. 5981 of 1999 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2001 (HC)

Rajeev Indravadan Modi and ors. Vs. Instance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. an ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Jan-23-2001

Reported in : (2001)3GLR2010

..... arise. on the contrary, if the argument advanced is accepted, it would, ultimately, result into a situation where the provision granting jurisdiction to the district court for trying patent infringement suits would become redundant. it may also be noted that, at this stage, the defendants have only expressed their intention of making counter-claim and possibility of their ..... separately but in the written statement. admittedly, no written statement is filed. therefore, the contention regarding the transfer of suit under the proviso to section 104 of the patents act under which the application was tendered before trial court cannot be accepted. the proviso specifically provides that where a counter-claim for revocation is made by the defendants, ..... petition challenging the validity before appropriate forum and till that is filed and decided by the competent authority, this hon'ble court is required to consider the validity of a patent in favourof the plaintiffs, and therefore, injunction application is required to be allowed by this honourable court.' 11.1 in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder, it ..... revisioners, who are the original plaintiffs in civil suit no. 11 of 2000 pending in district court, at vadodara. that suit is preferred by the plaintiffs alleging infringement of registered patent no. 183097 dated march 19, 1998, possessed by the plaintiffs by the defendants. in that suit, application for interim injunction was tendered and the learned assistant judge, vadodara, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 28 2001 (HC)

Deepak Nitrite Ltd. Vs. N.H. Rana

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-28-2001

Reported in : [2002(93)FLR431]

..... to interfere with the punishment unless the same is found to be disproportionate to the guilt. being aggrieved the decision of the learned single judge, the appellant has filed letters patent appeal before division bench of this court. the division bench of this court on page 35 at para 12a of the judgment has held thus:'in our opinion, in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 27 2001 (HC)

Jagdishbhai Mafatlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-27-2001

Reported in : (2002)4GLR3294

..... was granted earlier in both the petitions may be continued for a period of two weeks so as to enable the petitioners to approach the division bench by filing letters patent appeal as intra-court appeal is provided against the judgment of the single judge of this court. according to mr. nanavati, learned senior counsel, the interim relief was operating till ..... prejudice is going to be caused to either of the parties in view of the fact that there is winter vacation for one week and the petitioners cannot file letters patent appeal till reopening of the court. mr. b.s. patel, learned advocate submitted that the first meeting of the society in respect of special civil application no. 3821 of 2001 ..... by the supreme court as well as this court and hence the prayer to continue the interim relief to enable the petitioners to approach division bench by way of letters patent appeal cannot be entertained and accordingly the prayer for continuing the interim relief is rejected.

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 2001 (HC)

Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel (Vakil) Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-24-2001

Reported in : (2003)2GLR1577

..... error in holding that the petitioner was validly suspended under the provisions of section 40(1) of the code.27. as a result of the detailed discussion aforesaid, the letters patent appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.civil application shall stand dismissed accordingly.after pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for ..... to for suspending the petitioner from his elected office of president. the learned single judge by his order dated 28-8-2001, which is the subject-matter of this letters patent appeal, has construed the provisions of section 40 of the act and held that the expression used therein 'detention in jail during trial' includes within its meaning 'detention in jail ..... d.m. dharmadhikari, c.j. 1. this letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the order of the learned single judge dated 28-8-2001 whereby the writ petition against the order of his suspension .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 24 2001 (HC)

Bipinchandra Parshottamdas Patel (Vakil) Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-24-2001

Reported in : (2002)1GLR319

..... error in holding that the petitioner was validly suspended under the provisions of section 40(1) of the code. 27. as a result of the detailed discussion aforesaid, the letters patent appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. civil application shall stand dismissed accordingly. after pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for ..... to for suspending the petitioner from his elected office of president. the learned single judge by his order dated 28-08-2001, which is the subject matter of this letters patent appeal, has construed the provisions of section 40 of the act and held that the expression used therein 'detention in jail during trial' includes within its meaning 'detention in jail ..... d.m. dharmadhikari, c.j.1. this letters patent appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the order of the learned single judge dated 28-08-2001 whereby the writ petition against the order of his suspension .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2001 (HC)

R.P. Mistry, Since Deceased Through Heirs and Legal Repres Vs. Registr ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-20-2001

Reported in : (2001)4GLR3488

d.h. waghela, j. 1. this appeal, under clause 15 of the letters patent, is preferred from the judgment denying the relief of stepping up to the original petitioner, who, having passed away during the pendency of the appeal, is represented by his legal .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2001 (HC)

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Saurashtra Paints (Pvt.) Ltd.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-20-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Guj221; (2002)2GLR1109

r.k. abichandani, j. 1. the appellant-municipal corporation has challenged the judgment and order of the learned single judge quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent-corporation for the sale of the property scheduled in the petition and restraining the corporation from selling or attempting to sell by public auction or otherwise the property in question and from taking any steps against the property for recovery of its property tax dues for the period prior to the auction sale.2. the respondent-petitioner had prayed for a direction against the municipal corporation for not proceeding with the sale of the property for realisation of its dues in respect of that property for any period between 24th february, 1955 and 17th july, 1973. according to the petitioner, since it had purchased the property bearing survey no. 70 admeasuring 6050 sq. yards (1 acre & 7 gunthas approximately), which was specified in the schedule to the petition, in a public auction which was held on 17th july, 1973 by the commissioner for taking accounts pursuant to the orders made in darkhast no. 304 of 1971 by the ahmedabad city civil court for execution of the mortgage decree obtained by the gujarat stale finance corporation against the original owner-mortgagor m/s. shivlal virchand contractor and a sale certificate was issued in respect of the said property, the respondent-petitioner became its absolute owner from 17-1-1974 and had acquired a title free from all charges and mortgages created .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2001 (HC)

Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank Vs. A. Rajiv, CaptaIn Registrar, Sainik Sc ...

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-13-2001

Reported in : [2002(93)FLR649]; (2002)2GLR1072

..... special civil application no. 8388 of 1988 before this court which came to be allowed by the month of february, 2000 (i.e., after a period of 12 years). letters patent appeal no. 221 of 2000 preferred by respondent no. 2 came to be dismissed by the division bench of this court on 11-1-2001. consequently, the petitioner has been .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2001 (HC)

Anand Municipality and anr. Vs. Navjeevan Pulse Mills and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Decided on : Dec-10-2001

Reported in : AIR2002Guj192; (2001)4GLR3226

r. k. abichandani, j. 1. the appellants challenge the interim relief granted in terms of paragraph 12(b) of the petition filed by the respondents which reads as follows :'pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, your lordship be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or stay order against the concerned respondents from taking possession of the land mentioned in the notice dated 2-5-2000 or taking any steps or proceedings in pursuance of the said notice annexure 'h', annexure 'i' and annexure 'ee'.'2. it was submitted by the learned counsel that the learned single judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition in view of the declaration sought in paragraph 12(aa) of the petition to the effect that the preliminary and final scheme as sanctioned by the state government in relation to final plot no. 131(85) were ultra vires, bad in law and unenforceable and that the proceedings adopted by the town planning officer were without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles of natural justice. referring to ground (j) of the petition, it was submitted that the challenge against the scheme was made on the ground that the scheme was violative of the fundamental and other rights of the appellants-petitioners guaranteed by articles 14, 19 and 301a of the constitution of india. it was submitted that the learned single judge has committed a jurisdictional error in his finding given in paragraph 9 of the impugned order while stating that the challenge, in substance, .....

Tag this Judgment!


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