Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 115 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors vs Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune ... on 30 January, 2006
(b) 2006 (3) SCC 100 (Mayar (H.K.) Ltd and others Vs. Owners & Parties , Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others):
Section 48 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 108 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Popat And Kotecha Property vs State Bank Of India Staff Association on 29 August, 2005
12. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/D1 relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (4) CTC 489 (SC) (Popat and Kotecha Property Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association), in which, it was held by the Supreme Court that the plaint was hit by infirmities provided in Four Clauses of Rule 11 CPC (Order 7) and such power is to be exercised even without intervention of the defendant and the plaintiff therein was entitled to file fresh suit in terms of Order 7 Rule 13 CPC and the rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC does not preclude the plaintiff from filing fresh suit.
The Patents Act, 1970
D. Ramachandran vs R.V. Janakiraman & Ors on 11 March, 1999
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (3) SCC 267 (D.Ramachandran Vs. R.V.Janakiraman), wherein, the Apex Court held as follows:
1