Search Results for "Section 255(3)"

29 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 29 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Sets Aside Patent Opposition Dismissal for Lack of Reasoning and Non-Application of Mind. The court quashed the Deputy Controller's order as it failed to provide reasons and assess prior art under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, violating principles of natural justice.

The dispute arose from a post-grant opposition filed by the petitioner under Section 25(2)(c) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging Patent No. IN 2830...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Refusal of Ad-Interim Injunction in Property Dispute — Holds That Trial Court Must Consider Documents Prima Facie and That Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act Does Not Substitute Injunction

The appellant, Durga Bearing (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the order of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai, dated 10 August 2016, wh...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Batch of Petitions Challenging Constitutional Validity of Forest Development Tax Notification. Petitioners Alleged Notification Ultra Vires Article 246 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Seeking to Quash Demand Notices.

A batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court of Karnataka by various mining companies, corporations, and individuals, including National ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Considers Challenge to Forest Notification as Ultra Vires the Constitution and Forest Laws — Mining Companies Allege Notification Violates Article 246 and Entry 54 of Union List, Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

The matter involved multiple writ petitions filed before the High Court of Karnataka by several mining corporations and mineral industries, including ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Claims for Damages Against Plaintiff for Wrongful Arrest of Cargo in Admiralty Suit — Undertaking Under Rule 941 of Bombay High Court (OS) Rules Not Enforceable After Suit Withdrawal Without Adjudication on Merits.

The Plaintiff, Navbharat International Ltd., filed an admiralty suit and obtained an ex-parte order dated 12th January 2010 for arrest of cargo on boa...