Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 4 of about 154 results (0.009 seconds)

Oct 17 2005 (TRI)

The D.C.i.T. (Osd), Range 7(2) Vs. Saraf Chemicals Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-17-2005

Reported in : (2006)102ITD356(Mum.)

..... supreme court decision in the case of ciba (india) ltd. 69 itr 692. it was held in this case that any expenditure incurred for obtaining the right to use the patents and trademarks for a limited period is to be considered as an expenditure of revenue nature. the ld.cit(a) has then referred to the supreme court decision in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 14 2005 (HC)

Suresh S/O Lahorimal Khatri Vs. Balkisan S/O Shivnarayanji Chandak and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-14-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR146; 2006(3)BomCR135; 2006(2)MhLj443

..... reasoning. where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.(7) the power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the ..... ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.(6) a patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or ..... pvt. ltd. v. shankarprasad. in that case before the apex court, the point no. 1 that was for consideration was 'whether respondent's letters patent appeal was maintainable?' in answer to that point, the apex court observed thus:the writ petition invoking jurisdiction of the high court both under articles 226 and ..... by the single judge, exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india is expressly barred by clause 15 of the letters patent of bombay high court.14. even on merits the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the courts below have given a concurrent finding ..... the writ petition was found to be precisely under article 227 of the constitution of india. the present appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent of the bombay high court is not maintainable. to substantiate this, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision of our high .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 07 2005 (HC)

Harish Kawa Vs. P.T. Mehta

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-07-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR657; 2006(1)BomCR70; (2005)107BOMLR854

..... . 1994 s.c. 1837; brahmadev choudhary v. rishikesh prasad, a.i.r. 1997 s.c. 856disposition: appeal dismissedjudgements.c. dharmadhikari, j.1. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent read with order xxi rule 103 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgement and order of a learned single judge delivered on 18th january 1996 ..... the learned judge does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is, therefore, not required to be set aside by us in the appellate jurisdiction conferred by the letters patent and the code of civil procedure, 1908. 64. for the reasons indicated above, we are of the view that the appellant was entitled to be evicted and the direction to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 06 2005 (HC)

Adnan Bilal Mulla Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-06-2005

Reported in : (2005)107BOMLR1046; 2006CriLJ564; 2006(1)MhLj572

..... to the conclusion that section 184 and section 219 of the code are attracted to the facts of the present case. the judgment of the special court, therefore, suffers from patent illegalities and deserves to be set aside.9. the learned counsel contended that to the facts of this case even section 223 of the code will not be applicable because .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 05 2005 (TRI)

Micropure Parenterals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-05-2005

Reported in : (2005)(190)ELT23Tri(Mum.)bai

..... natural or reproduced by synthesis (including natural concentrates) derivatives thereof used primarily as vitamins and intermixtures thereof, whether or not in any solvent while the latter covers medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) other than those which are exclusively used in ayurvedic, unani, siddha, homoeopathic or biochemic systems. the moot point thus is whether the vitamin b complex tablets merit classification ..... as vitamins under sub-heading 2936.00 or as medicaments other than patent or proprietary ones. at first blush it may appear that the specific entry "vitamin" will apply and not the general one "medicaments". but the position is not so. it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 03 2005 (TRI)

Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-03-2005

..... to identify the manufacturer and not the product and is therefore in the nature of a house mark and that will not render the ayurvedic medicine in question as a patent or proprietary medicament.2. we have heard the learned sdr and perused the records; none appeals for the respondents in spite of notice.3. the adjudicating authority has examined the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 30 2005 (TRI)

Metchem Canada Inc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-30-2005

Reported in : (2006)100ITD251(Mum.)

..... the pe to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents, know-how or other rights, or by way of commission or other charges, for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by ..... the pe to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents, know-how or other rights, or by way of commission or other charges for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 29 2005 (HC)

Modella Woollens Ltd. Vs. the Official Liquidator and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-29-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)BomCR276; [2007]139CompCas663(Bom)

..... company judge was in error and the order passed by him is illegal or otherwise vitiated so as to be interfered with by us under clause 15 of the letters patent. 29. she has also invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the public premises eviction act. she submits that the authorities and rulings relied upon by mr. madon would ..... 020, is a trespasser, having no legal right to use and occupy these office premises and that a licence purported to have been created by the company in liquidation was patently illegal, fraudulent and void, ab-initio. prayer clause (b) of the company application sought a further declaration that a decree passed by the court of small causes, mumbai in rad ..... s.c. dharmadhikari, j.1. this appeal under clause 15 of the letters patent is directed against an order passed by a learned single judge of this court on the above company application. by the order dated 13th april 1995 the learned single judge .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 26 2005 (HC)

Ramdularibai Badrilal Chaurasiya and ors. Vs. Mohan Shrimal Nahar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-26-2005

Reported in : 2006(1)ALLMR751; 2006(2)BomCR130; 2006(1)MhLj358

..... , learned advocate for petitioners submitted that the view taken by the learned adj relying on the judgment of this court in the case of vinayak nirgun's case (supra) is patently erroneous and, thus, the adj has committed an error appearing on the face of the record in allowing the appeal filed by the tenant. he pointed out that the judgment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 23 2005 (HC)

Annappa Satu Mane Vs. Tajani Balu Shinde and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-23-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)ALLMR975; 2006(1)BomCR264; (2005)107BOMLR218; 2006(1)MhLj333

..... suit for injunction should be deferred any further due to the non-availability of the original papers in the revenue proceedings. 19. the impugned order suffers from a clear and patent error of reasoning in so far as it operates to quash the order of regrant made in favour of the petitioner. the petitioner had filed an appeal before the state ..... . there is, therefore, merit in the submission that the finding of the officer on special duty to the effect that the appeal was not maintainable suffered from a clear and patent error. 18. the officer on special duty has in the course of his impugned order rendered a finding in regard to the merits of the entitlement of the first respondent .....

Tag this Judgment!


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