Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Year: 1986 Page 7 of about 424 results (0.010 seconds)

Nov 25 1986 (HC)

Shipyard Technical Staff Assn. and Others Vs. Mazgaon Docks Ltd. and A ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-25-1986

Reported in : (1987)IILLJ266Bom

..... provides that in case the company acquires the patent as exclusive privilege it would be for a consideration fixed by the managing director. having regard to the limited class of inventions covered by this ..... unreasonable in requiring the officer to obtain the previous consent of the competent authority in regard to an application for a patent or exclusive privilege in respect of such invention or in requiring him to permit its use by the company free of charge. the rule also ..... company may take over such patent or exclusive privilege for such consideration as the managing director may fix.14. the phraseology employed in this rule leaves no doubt that it is ..... to adopt and use it without being obliged to pay any royalty or other consideration therefor. the officer may not assign, charge or transfer the patent or exclusive privilege without the previous consent in writing of the competent authority and without providing it for use by the company free of charge. the ..... meant to apply only to patents or exclusive privileges in respect of inventions made on the basis of knowledge or experience gained in the service of the company. there is nothing .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 1986 (FN)

Thornburgh Vs. Amer. Coll. of Obstetricians

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-11-1986

..... . 395 . the court attempts to veil the impropriety of its decision to affirm on the merits despite the procedural posture of this case by implying that the challenged provisions are patently unconstitutional. but this claim too is unsupported in this court's decisions concerning state regulation of abortion. the discretionary exception the court fashions today will also prove vexatious to administer ..... take an account of profits and damages." 165 u.s. at 165 u. s. 518 (emphasis added). the defendant challenged the trial court's alleged "error in holding that the patent was valid, and that it had been infringed." ibid. the circuit court of appeals reversed the decree, rejecting the plaintiff's contention that it could rule only on "whether an ..... is inconsistent with the statutory language and with the legislative intent reflected in that language; that the adverb "significantly" modifies the risk imposed on the woman; that the adverb is "patently not surplusage"; and that the language of the statute "is not susceptible to a construction that does not require the mother to bear an increased medical risk in order to ..... on to address the merits. id. at 343 u. s. 585 . and in smith v. vulcan iron works, 165 u. s. 518 (1897), the district court issued injunctions in two patent cases and referred them to a master for accounting. the court of appeals reversed. this court ruled that the court of appeals had acted properly in deciding the merits, since .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1986 (HC)

Shantilal Amolakchand Burad Vs. Vijay Ramji Pawar

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-03-1986

Reported in : (1986)88BOMLR535; 1986MhLJ713

..... the term of office of the members of the committee as provided for under section 73g(2) can be reduced. the conflict between the two provisions, therefore, is patent and we have no hesitation in rejecting the argument that there is no conflict between the two provisions.18. mr. a.h. desai, the learned advocate appearing for ..... held that if the resolution expressing lack of confidence in the managing committee was carried, the said resolution was not capable of execution.6. the appellants in letters patent appeal no. 24 of 1986 had been allowed to be joined, by an order passed by the learned single judge, as respondents in the writ petition inasmuch as ..... 4266 of 1985. necessarily few facts leading to the said writ petition ought to be mentioned. for the sake of convenience, the parties as described in letters patent appeal no. 24 of 1986 are referred to in this judgment.2. the 9th respondent, namely the girna sahakari sakhar kaikhana limited, is a specified co-operative society ..... were bound to be affected by any decision given in the writ petition. aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single judge they have preferred letters patent appeal no. 24 of 1986. letters patent appeal no. 25 of 1986 has been preferred by respondent no. 10 who was, as already mentioned above, respondent no. 2 in the writ ..... r.a. jahagirdar, j.1. these two letters patent appeals seek to challenge the judgment reported in [1986] mah. l.j. 314 given by a learned single judge of this court in writ petition no. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 29 1986 (HC)

State of Orissa Vs. Dolagobinda Nanda

Court : Orissa

Decided on : Jul-29-1986

Reported in : 62(1986)CLT307; 1986(II)OLR333

..... to manufacture stock and sell drugs. the respondent in this case had stocked 49 items of drugs which were seized from him. all of them were patent medicines. the prosecution was lodged in the year 1975 and a decade has already elapsed. at this distant point of time sentence of heavy imprisnment is ..... at page 21 of the air manual vol. 16, 4th edn.). it has been found on scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence that 49 items of patent medicines which were drugs were stocked by the respondent in his clinic. in his statement under section 313 of the code the respondent stated that he ..... the prosecution proved the seizure of the drugs from the clinic of the respondent who had neither a licence for stocking drugs in the shape of patent allopathic medicines nor could produce the purchase invoices to show the names and addresses of the persons from whom he acquired the same. he was also ..... w 1) raided and searched the clinic and found that the respondent was in possession of drugs (m. os. i to xliv) in the shape of patent medicines for sale. the drugs were seized by seizure list (ext. 1) in the presence of independent witnesses. the respondent was asked to produce the drug licence ..... warner, item no. 10 livomyne syrup manufactured by charak pharmaceutical, bombay, item no. 11 denmo quino, manufactured by east india pharmaceutical and many other patent medicines manuf- actured by different drugs manufacturers of, india and abroad. it is, therefore, beyond the pale of any controversy that the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 1986 (FN)

New York Vs. P. J. Video, Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Apr-22-1986

..... such pretrial showing in this case. justice marshall, with whom, justice brennan and justice stevens join, dissenting. under new york law, a film depicting specified sexual acts in a patently offensive manner is obscene if "the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that, considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to the prurient interest in sex ..... person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that considered as a whole, its predominant appeal is to the prurient interest in sex, and (b) it depicts or describes in a patently offensive manner, actual or simulated: sexual intercourse, sodomy, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sadism, masochism, excretion or lewd exhibition of the genitals, and (c) considered as a whole, it ..... describing the five films adequately established probable cause with respect to the second of the three elements of obscenity under the statute, namely, that the movies depicted "in a patently offensive manner" the various kinds of sexual conduct specified in the statute. see n.y. penal law 235.00(1)(b) (mckinney 1980). our review of the affidavits ..... " probable cause standard to review the affidavits submitted in support of the warrant application, the court of appeals stated: "many of the scenes described contain explicit sexual activity, patently offensive by any constitutional standard, but the allegations of the affidavits do not indicate whether they constitute all, most or a few of the scenes page 475 u. s. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 25 1986 (HC)

Gangaram Bendil Vs. Rashmi Parihar and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Oct-25-1986

Reported in : 1987MPLJ410

..... counsel for the election petitioner that the impugned order in the present appeal did not amount to 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 of the letters patent and therefore the appeal was incompetent. several authorities were cited in support of the contention, but we do not propose to decide the preliminary objection about maintainability of the appeal ..... in laxmi narain v. ramratan. 1986 jab lj 238 : (air 1986 madh pra 165), it was not disputed that a letters patent appeal against an interlocutory order, amounting to 'judgment' within the meaning of clause 10 of the letters patent, passed in an election petition by a single judge is competent. it was, however, submitted by shri p.l. dubey the learned ..... the arguments of shri p.l. dubey, counsel for the respondent no. 1. he did not argue any new point, requiring any separate dicsussion.13. in the result, this letters patent appeal is hereby dismissed. in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs of the appeal. ..... k.m. agarwal, j. 1. this letters patent appeal by the returned candidate is directed against an order passed on 18-8-1986 by the learned single judge of this court in a pending election petition no. 23 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 27 1986 (HC)

income-tax Officer Vs. Continental Construction Co. Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-27-1986

Reported in : [1986]15ITD753(Delhi)

..... not.42. as against this section 80-0 provides for deduction in respect of roulettes, commissions fees and any similar payments received from certain enterprises for either use of any patent, invention secret formula etc. or for rendering technical services outside india. the deduction which was available in the year under consideration was whole of the income as against only ..... section 80-o were not at all applicable to the assessed. apart from this, the assessed has not claimed in applications that it was receiving any fees for use of patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge. in all the applications, the assessed has made it clear that the consideration for ..... other and in no case before assessment year 1983-84. in case an assessed can establish that the project executed by an assessed involves the use outside india of any patent, invention, model design, engineering or constructional services, the assessed would be entitled to the concession referred to in section 80-o of the income-tax act.'28. he ..... of the income-tax act which mentions about deductions in respect of royalty, commission, fees or any similar payment received by the assessed for the use outside india of any patent, invention, model design, secret formula or process or similar property right or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill. section 80hhb extends the concession to a .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 02 1986 (FN)

South Carolina Vs. Catawba Indian Tribe

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Jun-02-1986

..... , 3 pet. 270, 28 u. s. 277 (1830). [ footnote 19 ] see, e.g., larkin v. paugh, 276 u. s. 431 , 276 u. s. 439 (1928) ("with the issue of the patent, the title not only passed from the united states but the prior trust and the incidental restrictions against alienation were terminated. this put an end to the authority theretofore possessed ..... patents are not federal claims at all, because, "[o]nce patent issues, the incidents of ownership are, for the most part, matters of local property law, to be vindicated in local courts." 414 u.s. at 414 u ..... limitations to indian land claims. see oneida ii, 470 u.s. at 470 u. s. 240 -244. more importantly, all the cases cited by the majority involve lands for which patents had been issued to individual indians, not lands alleged to remain tribal property. this court made clear in oneida i that claims arising under such .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 10 1986 (HC)

P. Tej Raj Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-10-1986

Reported in : ILR1986KAR2701; 1986(2)KarLJ24

..... applicants instead of granting all the applications of kstdc or of itdc was in public interest. certainly such distribution promotes healthy competition and is in public interest. we find no patent error of law in the order of the tribunal. therefore, the order of the tribunal cannot be interfered with.45. one of the objections raised against the grant of permits ..... his downfall employed such a classification.'(underlining by us)therefore, if the expression 'tourist cars' were to mean only tourist motor cars/cabs and not omnibuses, the provision would be patently violative of the article for, operators of a tourist omnibus in which 35 to 50 passengers are carried at a lime as against only 5 passengers in a tourist motorcar ..... . in any event clause (iv) of the proviso which provides for the grant of approval for being placed in preferential category only in respect of operators of tourist cars is patently discriminatory as against such of the petitioners who have been operating tourist omnibuses. if a person who has operated tourist car for some time is regarded as entitled to preferential ..... also the following question arise for consideration.whether the order of the sta in full or in part liable to be set aside on the ground that it suffers from patent error of law ?first question- the constitutional validity :12. the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on this question may be summarised as follows : all the persons who intend .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 1986 (SC)

Ambalal Manibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-05-1986

Reported in : AIR1986SC1620; 1989Supp(2)SCC362

..... in the high court challenging the validity of the said notification dated march 26, 1979, so far as the enhancement of the dead rent was concerned. the appellant's letters patent appeals as also those writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment reported as smt. sonbai pentalji v. state of gujarat (1980) 2 (21) 2 guj lr ..... appellant's writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the high court. thereupon, the appellant filed a letters patent appeal against the said order of dismissal being letters patent appeal no. 62 of 1978. while the said letters patent appeal was pending, the government of gujarat issued a notification dated march 26, 1979, whereby it made the gujarat minor minerals .....

Tag this Judgment!

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