best lawyers in Supreme Court of India – http://supremecourtindia.in/the-supreme-court-of-india-has-a-history-of-resolving-complex-conflicts/. 2(h) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939, a sale is deemed to have taken place in that State, wherever the contract of sale might have been made, if the goods were actually in the State at the time when the contract in respect thereof was made. Am outside sale was defined by defining an inside sale in the Explanation to the clause, as a sale which shall be deemed to have taken place in the State in which the goods have actually been delivered as a direct result of such sale for the purpose of consumption in that State notwithstanding the fact that under the general law relating to sale of goods the property in the goods has by reason of such sale passed in another State.
In my view, notwithstanding what Lord Diplock said in Catnic [1982] RPC 183, 242, a problem of infringement is best law firms in Supreme Court of India approached by addressing two issues, each of which is to be considered through the eyes of the notional addressee of the patent in suit, ie the person skilled in the relevant art. 286(2) retro- spectively, during the period between April 1, 1951, and September 6, 1955, with the result that, transactions of sale, even though they were inter-State sales, could, for that period be lawfully charged to tax.
In Kodros Shipping Corpn v Empresa Cubana de Fletes (The Evia) (No 2) [1983] 1 AC 736, which was another time charterparty case, Lord Diplock said at p 749 that he regarded the nature of the contractual promise by the charterer in what he called the safe port clause as having been well settled for a quarter of a century at the very least. Clause (1)(a) prohibited every State from imposing or authorising the imposition of, a tax on outside sales. We were referred to a number of cases which seem to me to support that conclusion.
286 as it was originally enacted, imposed four bans upon the legislative power of the States to impose sales tax. The Constitution, by Art. It is also apparent that the two issues comply with article 1 of the Protocol in that they involve balancing the competing interests of the patentee and of clarity, just as much as they seek to balance the encouragement of inventions and their disclosure with the need for a competitive market. lawyers in Supreme Court India my view, issue (i) self-evidently raises a question of interpretation, whereas issue (ii) raises a question which would normally have to be answered by reference to the facts and expert evidence.
If all sums payable (other than statutory interest) in the liquidation were duly paid without recourse to the retained sum, then the retained sum could be paid to the contributories. He referred specifically to the expression “abnormal occurrence” used by Sellers LJ in The Eastern City which he said reflected the previous statement of Morris LJ in The Stork. 286(2), the State legislature could not impose sales-tax on inter-State sales until Parliament provided otherwise.
Clause (2) prohibited the imposition of tax on the sale of goods where such sale took place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce unless Parliament otherwise provided. 603 delivered on September 6, 1955, held that because of Art. Those issues are: (i) does the variant infringe any of the claims as a matter of normal interpretation; and, if not, (ii) does the variant nonetheless infringe because it varies from the invention in a way or ways which is or are immaterial?
Clause (1)(b) prohibited the imposition of tax on sales in the course of import into or export out of, the territory of India. Under Explanation (2) to s. Referring back to paras 121 and 122 above, the liquidator would be obliged to deal with the retained sum in that way as it will have been held by, and been passed to him by, the administrator for that purpose. Otherwise, the retained sum would be dealt with in accordance with the duties of the liquidator.
By the Sales Tax Laws Validation Act, 1956, Parliament removed the ban contained in Art. Rule 8 deals with pay of officers holding posts enumerated top advocates in Supreme Court India Schedule III and states as follows: – “Any member of the Service appointed to hold a post specified advocates in Supreme Court of India Schedule 111, shall, for so long as he holds that post, be entitled to draw the pay indicated for that post in the said Schedule: If the answer to either issue is “yes”, there is an infringement; otherwise, there is not.
This Court, in its judgment in the Bengal Immunity Co. Such an approach complies with article 2 of the Protocol, as issue (ii) squarely raises the principle of equivalents, but limits its ambit to those variants which contain immaterial variations from the invention. See also Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City) [1956] AC 266, which was a voyage charterparty case to which essentially the same principles were applied.
Clause (3) prohibited the State from imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax on the sale of any goods declared by Parliament by best law firms in Supreme Court of India to be essential for the life of the community, unless the legislation was reserved for the consideration of the President and had received his assent. Sellers LJ’s famous dictum quoted above was taken from the judgment of Morris LJ in The Stork [1955] 2 QB 68, 105, which was a time charterparty case.