Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: kolkata Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 57 results (0.009 seconds)

Oct 16 2002 (TRI)

Graphite India Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Decided on : Oct-16-2002

Reported in : (2003)86ITD384(Kol.)

..... the exclusive benefits of and absolute right to all inventions, improved process of manufacture, designs, secret materials, formulas of mixing, improvements in addition to or further inventions relating to the patents or processes of manufacture or products manufactured or being developed by the company or otherwise relating to the business and affairs of the company which you may produce, make, invent ..... any such improvement, invention or additions as the company shall think fit. 7. you shall agree that any and all improvements, intentions and discoveries, whether or not capable of being patented, which you may make either alone or in conjunction with others during your appointment hereunder relating to or in anyway pertaining to or connection with any of the products of ..... of the company, execute and sign any and all applications, assignments and other instruments which the company may deem necessary or advisable in order to apply for and obtain letters patent design registration or other forms of protection for the said improvements, inventions and discoveries in such countries as the company may direct and to vest in the company alone or .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2002 (HC)

Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-13-2002

Reported in : [2002]257ITR681(Cal)

..... . the beginning of section 32 is in the following terms : '32. depreciation.--(1) in respect of depreciation of- (i) buildings, machinery, plant or furniture, being tangible assets ; (ii) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of april, 1998, owned, wholly .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 10 2002 (TRI)

Sher Singh, Director of Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-10-2002

Reported in : (2004)(2)SLJ69CAT

..... . goel [(1964) 4 scr 718], this court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."bank of india and anr. v. degala suryanarayana, jt .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 03 2002 (HC)

Monoranjan Das Vs. Pulak Dutta and 5 ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-03-2002

Reported in : 2004(1)CHN328

..... manifest illegality giving rise to a gross miscarriage of justice. in that view of the matter, intervention of this revisional court has become necessary in order to set right the patent wrong.19. to sum up, the ld. judge has failed to make a proper appreciation of the evidences, particularly the circumstantial evidence. he has failed to gauge the combined effect ..... the high court has undoubted jurisdiction to set aside and acquittal and to order retrial in exceptional cases to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice or to set right a patent wrong or error either of law or of fact (vide the decisions reported in air 1941 bomb. 410, 33 cwn 576, 28 cr.l.j. 523, 41 cr.l.n .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 2002 (HC)

M.N. Roy and anr. Vs. Snehasis Bagchi

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Oct-10-2002

Reported in : 2003(2)CHN361

..... vested in him. learned trial judge found that there were sufficient materials pleaded in the plaint, i.e., publication of defamatory words like 'sheer stupidity' and 'not only untrue but patently dishonest.' it is not for the learned trial court to assess as to how far such comments were justified in course of discharge of official duty or were protected within ..... , mr. laxmi gupta first drew attention of this court to page-28 and page-31 of the case record which revealed the comments 'sheer stupidity' and 'not only untrue but patently dishonest.' it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action and as such, was liable to be rejected. order ..... no. 1 rejected the leave application of the plaintiff behind his back and the order dated 6th march, 1997 described the statement of the petitioner as 'not only untrue but patently dishonest'. all such communications were made by departmental process through peons before the office staff thereby lowering the dignity of the plaintiff in the estimation of the public. both the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2002 (HC)

P. Viswanathan Vs. Dr. A.K. Burman and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Oct-08-2002

Reported in : 2003CriLJ949

..... , subtraction, disturbance; (c) torts to personal property, consisting (i) in the unlawful taking or detaining or damage to corporeal personal property or chattels; or (ii) in the infringement of a patent, trademark, copyright, etc. (d) slander of title; (e) deprivation of service and consortium.the second class includes deceit and negligence in the discharge of a private duty.the third class .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2002 (HC)

Montek Singh Vs. State of West Bengal and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Oct-08-2002

Reported in : (2003)2CALLT85(HC),2002CriLJ4617

..... act. 14. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides at length. the petitioners have challenged the continuation of the proceeding alleging that the aforesaid proceedings is patently bad in law as it violates the statutory provisions contained under sub-section (3) of section 20 of the railway protection force act, 1957 inasmuch as the aforesaid legal proceeding .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 2002 (HC)

Kal Electronic and Consultancy (P.) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Development Cor ...

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-20-2002

Reported in : [2004]119CompCas337(Cal)

..... this court has no territorial jurisdiction in hearing the suit which is still pending. there they have prayed that leave which has been granted under clause 12 of the letters patent be revoked and/ or suit be dismissed. the present stand of the petitioners is militating with the original stand taken by them. hence i have called upon mr. raja basuchowdhury ..... this type of litigation cannot persist.12. at the time of institution of the suit three leaves were sought by the plaintiff. firstly, leave under clause 12 of the letters patent because, according to the plaintiff, part of the cause of action is arising out of the jurisdiction which was granted by the court. secondly, leave under order 1, rule 8 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2002 (HC)

Surinder Kaur Rai Vs. Jyoti Ranjan Banerjee and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-16-2002

Reported in : 2002(4)CHN685

..... . on appeal to supreme court, the decision was reversed : air1978sc1409 and one of main grounds was that the appellant was conducting his case in person till the stage of letters patent appeal. a litigant appearing in person is not supposed to know the practice of a court. the other ground was that a rule of practice cannot be exalted to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 05 2002 (HC)

Prasanta Kumar Basu Vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Sep-05-2002

Reported in : (2003)1CALLT319(HC),(2003)IIILLJ189Cal

..... of india v. h.c. goel : (1964)illj38sc this court held that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary, authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.'24. briefly summarized the three heads of grounds on .....

Tag this Judgment!


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