top advocates in Supreme Court of India – http://supremecourtindia.in/lawyers-on-tv-debates-killing-this-institution-says-supreme-court/; 2 of the 1960 Act any land taken over for the construction of embankments before the 1955 Act came into force unless the acquisition was validly made under any other best law firms in Supreme Court of India for the time being in force shall be deemed to have been validity acquired under the 1955 Act and is deemed to have vested in the State Government from the date the land was actually taken possession of; and compensation was payable in accordance with the principles in s. This seems to be supported by Azéma and Galloux, Droit de la propriété industrielle, 7th ed (2012), which distinguishes at p 442 between two categories of patents.
At para 217, the court concluded that: The statement made by the person may be tendered in evidence against him but a prosecution for the offence of giving false evidence in respect of such statement is entertainable only with the High Court’s sanction. Section 339A lays down the procedure for trial. 6(1) of the 1955 Act the owner of the land shall get compensation for land including standing crops and trees, if any, but excluding buildings or structures, a sum not.
The second category is patents “which indicate the particular means which infer such function” (moyens particuliers), or claims which are “narrowly worded to cover specific means” as Arnold J expressed it. As the Act did not apply to the lands which were taken possession of before it came into force, the Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion (Validation) Act, 1959, Act XXI of 1960 was pass- ed, validating the acquisition of lands of which such possession had been taken.
French law, according to the expert witnesses in this case, applies the doctrine of equivalents where the variant is “different in form but perform[s] the same function” as the invention, but only where “the function [claimed in the patent] is a new one”. In summary, (i) income tax on emoluments or earnings is due on money paid as a reward or remuneration for the exertions of the employee; (ii) focusing on the statutory wording, neither section 131 of ICTA nor section 62(2)(a) or (c) of ITEPA, nor the other provisions of ITEPA which I have quoted (except section 62(2)(b)), provide that the employee himself or herself must receive the remuneration; (iii) in this context the references to making a relevant payment “to an employee” or “other payee” in the PAYE Regulations fall to be construed as payment either to the employee or to the person to whom the payment is made with the agreement or acquiescence of the employee or as arranged by the employee, for example by assignation or assignment; (iv) the specific statutory rule governing gratuities, profits and incidental benefits in section 62(2)(b) of ITEPA applies only to such benefits; (v) the cases, to which I have referred above, other than Hadlee, do not address the question of the taxability of remuneration paid to a third party; (vi) Hadlee supports the view which I have reached; and (vii) the special commissioners in Sempra Metals (and in Dextra) were presented with arguments that misapplied the gloss in Garforth and erred in adopting the gloss as a principle so as to exclude the payment of emoluments to a third party.
The first category is those which “in general terms claim the means that provide for a particular function” (moyens généraux), or as Arnold J put it lawyers in Supreme Court India para 160 of his judgment, claims which cover “general means”. 6(2) the owner shall get compensation for the building or structure, if any, a sum equivalent to the sale proceeds of the materials plus fifteen per cent thereof. The doctrine is only normally applicable to the first category of claims.
Arnold J added top lawyers in Supreme Court India para 160 that the categorisation of a patent for this purpose may depend in part on what was known at the priority date – see the decisions of the Cour de Cassation in Appeal S 09-15668 Institut Pasteur v Chiron Healthcare, 23 November 2010 and of the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance in Case 09/01863 Mundipharma Laboratories GmbH v Sandoz SAS, 2 July 2010. “The flaws were (i) the lack of focus of the regime and the lack of any qualifying requirements for appellants who would be allowed to enter into a CFA; (ii) the absence of any incentive for appellants to control the incurring of legal costs and the fact that judges assessed costs only at the end of the case when it was too late to control costs that had been spent; (iii) the ‘blackmail’ or ‘chilling’ effect of the regime which drove parties to settle early despite good prospects of a defence; and (iv) the fact that the regime gave the opportunity to ‘cherry pick’ winning cases to conduct on CFAs.
The Assam Acquisition of Land for Flood Control and Prevention of Erosion Act, 1955, was passed before the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act. exceeding 40 times the annual land revenue in case of periodic patta land and 15 times the annual land revenue in case of annual patta land. The sections being applicable equally to tender of pardon under the Code and under the Criminal law firms in Supreme Court India Amendment Act, no inference can be drawn as suggested.