Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Sorted by: recent Court: supreme court of india Year: 2004 Page 11 of about 108 results (0.335 seconds)

Jan 05 2004 (SC)

Ajay Gandhi and anr. Vs. B. Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-05-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1391; (2004)186CTR(SC)506; 2004(95)ECC13; 2004(167)ELT257(SC); [2004]265ITR451(SC); JT2004(1)SC211; 2004(1)SCALE84; (2004)2SCC120; 2004(2)SLJ160(SC)

..... parte beckwith (1996) 1 all e.r. 129, the house of lords has held that a departmental circular is entitled, to respect. it can only be ignored when it is patently wrong: the said principle has also been followed in indian metals and ferro alloys ltd. vs. collector of central excise : 1991ecr11(sc) ; keshavji ravji and co. v. commissioner of income .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2004 (SC)

Ajay Gandhi Vs. B. Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-05-2004

Reported in : [2004]134TAXMAN537(SC)

..... parte, beckwith (1996) 1 all e.r. 129, the house of lords has held that a departmental circular is entitled to respect. it can only be ignored when it is patently wrong. the said principle has also been followed in indian metals & ferro alloys ltd. v. cce : 1991ecr11(sc) ; keshavji ravji & co. v. cit : [1990]183itr1(sc) , raymond synthetics ltd. v .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (SC)

Metroark Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : 2004(92)ECC489; 2004(164)ELT225(SC); (2004)12SCC505

..... ) ...... (b) ...... (c) medicaments (heading no. 30.03)' 4.1.5 heading no. 30.03 & sub-heading no. 3003.20 30.03 medicaments (including veterinary medicaments). 3003.20 medicaments (other than patent or proprietary) nilother than those which are exclusively used in ayurvedic,unani, siddha, homeopathic or bio-chemic systems. 4.1.6 note 2(i) to chapter 30 2. for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2004 (SC)

The State of West Bengal Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-15-2004

Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201

..... to mean, "land ofwhatever description ... and includes all benefits to arise out of land".lands held for carrying on mining operations would be taken in by the saiddefinition. it is patently clear that 'minerals', which are benefitsarising out of land, will be roped in within the purview of the levy undersection 3(1) read with section 2(c) of the act ..... a grantor or lessor, on the working of the property leased, or otherwise on the profits of the grant of lease. the word is especially used in reference to mines/ patents and copyrights."prem's judicial dictionary (1992, vol. 2, page 1458) - "royalties are payments which the government may demand for the appropriation of minerals, timber or other property belonging to ..... the demised mineral worked within a specified period"wharton's law lexicon (fourteenth edition, page 893) - "royalty, payment to a patentee by agreement on every article made according to his patent; or to an author by a publisher on every copy of his book sold; or to the owner of minerals for the right of working the same on every ton ..... , that part of the reddendum which is variable, and depends upon the quantity of minerals gotten or the agreed payment to a patentee on every article made according to the patent. rights or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty"words and phrases, legally defined (third edition, 1990, vol.4, page 112) - "a royalty, in the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 2004 (SC)

Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-13-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1815; 2004(176)ELT24(SC); JT2004(1)SC232; 2004(1)SCALE341; (2004)3SCC214

..... interveners with regard to the 'compromise proposals' that are submitted by the port trust and consider the same on merits. it will be open to the respondents in the letters patent appeals before the high court as well as the interveners to agitate the points which were agitated before the learned single judge and which have been decided against them by ..... the learned single judge. if any of the appellants in these appeals had not intervened before the high court in letters patent appeals still will be open to him to move the high court for intervention.'(emphasis supplied)8. the matter reached back and has been disposed of afresh vide the impugned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2004 (SC)

Basheer @ N.P. Basheer Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-09-2004

Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)648; 2004CriLJ1418; 2004(92)ECC33; JT2004(2)SC299; 2004(2)KLT39(SC); 2004(2)SCALE415; (2004)3SCC609

..... connection to the object sought to be achieved. article 14 does not insist upon classification, which is scientifically perfect or logically complete. a classification would be justified unless it is patently arbitrary. if there is equality and uniformity in each group, the law will not become discriminatory, though due to some fortuitous circumstance arising out of (sic) peculiar situation some included .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2004 (SC)

Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and ors. Vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and or ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-23-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1801; 2004(2)ALD115(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)360; 2004(2)AWC1505(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN152; 2004(2)SCALE82; (2004)3SCC137; 2004(2)LC817(SC)

arijit pasayat j. 1. leave granted.2. the appellants who were plaintiffs in a suit filed before the learned civil judge, senior division, srirampur have questioned legality of the conclusions arrived at by the courts below holding that the plaint filed by them was to be rejected in terms of order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure, 1908 (in short the 'code'). the plaintiffs claimed to be tenants under respondent no. 2. shaneshwar deosthan trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'trust'). its trustees and the assistant charity commissioner (in short the 'commissioner') were the other defendants. plaintiffs claimed that they were tenants of the trust of which the defendants nos. 3 to 13 were the trustees. alleging that they have been forcibly evicted notwithstanding continuance of the tenancy, the suit was filed for the following reliefs: a) plaintiff no. 1 to 17, be declared as the tenants of the properties described in the plaint belonging to temple trust, of which defendant no. 2 to 13 are trustees. b) defendant no. 1 to 13, be permanently restrained by an order of injunction not to evict plaintiff no. 1 to 13 forcibly with the help of police and also not to interfere in their business being carried on by them in suit shops, and not to interfere in the possession of suit shops in any manner-whatsoever, either by themselves or by their servants, agents, relatives or anybody claiming through or under them. c) direct the defendant no. 2 to 13, to pay compensation for the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2004 (SC)

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Naveen Jindal and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-23-2004

Reported in : AIR2004SC1559; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)339; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN30; 109(2004)DLT17(SC); 2004(73)DRJ720; JT2004(2)SC1; 2004(1)SCALE677; (2004)2SCC510; 2004(2)LC955(SC)

v.n. khare, c.j. 1. leave granted in the s.l.p.2. in these appeals a short but an important question that arises for consideration is whether the right to fly the national flag by indian citizen is a fundamental right within the meaning of article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of india.3. naveen jindal, the respondent herein, is a joint managing director of a public limited company incorporated under the companies act. he being in charge of the factory of the said company situated at raigarh in madhya pradesh was flying national flag at the office premises of his factory. he was not allowed to do so by the government officials on the ground that the same is impermissible under the flag code of india.4. questioning the said action, the respondent filed a writ petition before the high court, inter alia, on the ground that no law could prohibit flying of national flag by indian citizens. flying of national flag with respect and dignity being a fundamental right, the flag code which contains only executive instructions on the government of india and, thus, being not a law, cannot be considered to have imposed reasonable restrictions in respect thereof within the meaning of clause (2) of article 19 of the constitution of india5. before the high court, the appellant-union of india raised the following contentions :'1. that the central government is authorised to impose restrictions on the use of national flag at any public place or building and can regulate the same by the authority .....

Tag this Judgment!


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