Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: mumbai Year: 2005 Page 9 of about 154 results (0.008 seconds)

Jun 10 2005 (TRI)

Essar Oil Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-10-2005

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)270

..... or lump sum, and, however described or computed, to the extent to which they are made as consideration for-- (a) the use of, or the right to use, any copyright, patent, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, trademark, or other like property or right; (b) the use of, or the right of use, any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 07 2005 (HC)

Omprakash Madanlal Pandya Vs. Shree Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-07-2005

Reported in : 2005(4)BomCR516; [2006]131CompCas527(Bom)

..... court either the original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction thereof. merely because the companies act is enacted in 1956 and letters patent is of 1860 does not mean that provision of s. 460 is not applicable. the last contention advanced by the learned counsel that none except official ..... contention advanced by the learned counsel in his written submission is that the present suit is of year 1979 and the same is filed under the letter patent of the high court and therefore proceedings pending in this court is not affected by provision of s. 446 which has been part of companies act ..... .13. the next contention advanced by the learned counsel by virtue of the fact that the high court is established by virtue of letters patent the provision of s. 446 would not be attracted and the jurisdiction of high court is not affected by s. 446 merely because it is created ..... 1 of 1956.it has been contended that the letters patent being a superior legislation the provisions of the company's act cannot affect the jurisdiction of the high court which is established under the said letters ..... by letters patent in my opinion has no merits whatsoever. the establishment of high court under letters patent is obviously subject to various laws enacted from time to time and obviously subject to jurisdiction vested by this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2005 (HC)

Pusaram S/O Dashrathlalji Agrawal and anr. Vs. Ratilal S/O Valji Laddh ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-06-2005

Reported in : 2005(6)BomCR164; 2005(4)MhLj341

..... defendants. the suit was filed at calcutta and none of the lands were located in west bengal. the special bench considers clause 12 of letters patent, calcutta and also section 20 of civil procedure code. clause 12 of letters patent divided suits into two categories (i) suits for land and (ii) suits which are not suits for land. the suits for land could be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 06 2005 (HC)

Seema Ganesh Uikey Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-06-2005

Reported in : IV(2005)ACC500; 2007ACJ1090; 2005(4)ALLMR919; 2005(5)BomCR117; 2005(4)MhLj559

..... permitted to take a defence that he neither knew nor ought to have known the danger. 'the owner is legally responsible irrespective of whether the damage is caused by a patent or a latent defect' said their lordships. in our opinion, the said principle is applicable to the owner of a tree standing by the side of a road. if the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2005 (TRI)

J.M. Industries Vs. the Commissioner of Central

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-03-2005

..... cbe&c circular no. 37/96-cus dated 30/07/96. the contention of the appellants in the appeal before the tribunal that all the bunkers were consumed is therefore patently incorrect, in view of the clear finding of the adjudicating authority. since the authorities below have correctly assessed bunkers on merit in the light of the circular referred above, there .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2005 (TRI)

Amitabh Bachchan Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-18-2005

Reported in : (2005)97TTJ(Mum.)516

..... act for abcl which would assign. (d) the artist did not possess any right in any performance on date of agreement which he could assign. (e) the terms 'design and patent' referred to in the agreement remained undefined. indemnity clause 6.12 stipulates that artist agrees and shall keep fully indemnified at all times m/s abcl from and against all ..... .17 in the light of the above discussions, the following inferences were drawn : "(a) the agreements suffer from ambiguities, the patent one being the recourses open to the company in case of any breach by the artist as explained above. the patent ambiguity is non-disclosure of basis on which payment of rs. 15 crores is made and the basis on which .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 18 2005 (TRI)

Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Oboi Laboratories

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-18-2005

1. revenue is in appeal. issue is classification of medicaments assesed as patent and proprietory on basis of a russian language label zymicin which is patent medicine in russia & the gentamycin drops also assessed as generic medicine when not being exported as zymicin to russia.2. revenue contends that there is no provision to accept the russian language label for product zymicin which bears the english inserptic 'gentamycin injection i.p' on it to be patent and proprietary medicine.3. we find no infirmity in accepting zymicin to be a brand name to bring in the classification as patent and proprietary medicine, even if label is not printed in english and is in russian...goods are exclusively meant for export. the definition of mark in chapter note 2(ii) of chapter 30 does not restrict the 'invented words' to be only in a particular script. that goods cannot have two classification i.e.patent and proprietary and generic medicine as taken by revenue, in violation of the central excise law that that goods have to be classified as they emerge and have to pay duty as on clearance. if same gentamycin injection is packed bearing a label, monogram etc. it has to pay duty as patent and proprietary medicine and if it does not bear the same, it has to be classified as generic medicaments the script and language of the brand, monogram and on label is not material. there is no reason to interfere with the order of cce (a). revenue appeal is required to be dismissed.

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2005 (TRI)

Arco Whitey Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-17-2005

Reported in : (2006)(193)ELT217Tri(Mum.)bai

..... purchased the manufacturing unit as a 'going concern' with all its assets, including the goodwill, right to use the trade mark and all technical drawing and designs and know-how, patents, licenses etc. in consideration of rs. 107.00 lakhs. as such, it is their contention that with effect from 28.03.94, the trade mark belongs to them and has .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 13 2005 (TRI)

Asia Pacific Fund Inc. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : May-13-2005

Reported in : (2005)96TTJ(Mum.)548

..... and justified the action of the ao on the ground that only mistakes which can be rectified under section 154 are the mistakes apparent from record (which) are obvious or patent mistakes, and would not include 'a mistake which can be established following a process of reasoning'. it was noted that the mistake as pointed out, even if a mistake, could .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 06 2005 (HC)

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through Divisional Traffi ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-06-2005

Reported in : 2006(2)BomCR340; (2005)107BOMLR251; (2006)IILLJ283Bom; 2005(4)MhLj798

..... which have been granted by the learned single judge are rightly molded and no interference is necessary by us. in the result, we pass the following order.order(1) letters patent appeal nos. 203 of 2001, 204 of 2001, 205 of 2001, 206 of 2001 and 207 of 2001 are hereby dismissed.(2) the judgment and order dated 2nd august 2001 ..... s.b. mhase, j.1. these letters patent appeals are directed against the common judgment delivered by the learned single judge in writ petition nos. 3831 of 1995, 2441 of 1995, 2442 of 1995 and 5801 of 1999 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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