SEKAR REPORTER

Court News from Madras High Court

Category: Uncategorized

Uncategorized

HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.45674 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.50906 of 2025 All India Motor Vehicle Security Association, Rep. through R Sekar, Authorized Signatory

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.11.2025 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.45674 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.50906 of 2025 All...

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/income-tax-s-2542-is-akin-to-order-47-rule-1-cpc-rectification-limited-to-apparent-errors-madras-high-court-312493

Uncategorized

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan stated that when the power under section 254(2) is akin to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/income-tax-s-2542-is-akin-to-order-47-rule-1-cpc-rectification-limited-to-apparent-errors-madras-high-court-312493

[08/12, 13:47] Sekarreporter: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/income-tax-s-2542-is-akin-to-order-47-rule-1-cpc-rectification-limited-to-apparent-errors-madras-high-court-312493 [08/12, 13:47] Sekarreporter: The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47...

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/income-tax-s-2542-is-akin-to-order-47-rule-1-cpc-rectification-limited-to-apparent-errors-madras-high-court-312493

Uncategorized

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/income-tax-s-2542-is-akin-to-order-47-rule-1-cpc-rectification-limited-to-apparent-errors-madras-high-court-312493

[08/12, 13:47] Sekarreporter: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/income-tax-s-2542-is-akin-to-order-47-rule-1-cpc-rectification-limited-to-apparent-errors-madras-high-court-312493 [08/12, 13:47] Sekarreporter: The Madras High Court has held that the rectification power under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is akin to the review power under Order 47...

“Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’) formulation and even asserted that SE was superior to EC and emphasised that later claims referring to EC formulations were not fairly based on the provisional specification. Noting further that several prior art documents and affidavits were ignored, the Court set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different officer through a speaking order within four months. Background:” https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/12/08/madras-hc-lack-of-findings-on-provisional-specification-vitiates-patent-rejection-herbicidal-composition-patent-application-reconsideration/#:~:text=Judge%20Bench%20of,Background%3A

Uncategorized

“Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’) formulation and even asserted that SE was superior to EC and emphasised that later claims referring to EC formulations were not fairly based on the provisional specification. Noting further that several prior art documents and affidavits were ignored, the Court set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different officer through a speaking order within four months. Background:” https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/12/08/madras-hc-lack-of-findings-on-provisional-specification-vitiates-patent-rejection-herbicidal-composition-patent-application-reconsideration/#:~:text=Judge%20Bench%20of,Background%3A

“Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’)...

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com