Fawazzx/semantic huggingface dataset:
Shyam Divan,learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent,on the other hand,submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the period fixed originally under the Charter Party or under the Addendum dated 29th June,1998 had come to an end,the subsequent conduct of the parties goes to show that charter of the vessel by the appellant beyond 31st August,1998 continued to be governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in charter party dated 6th May,1997 and,therefore,an arbitration agreement did exist between the parties
Semantic role: Argument
However,on 31st October,1998,the appellant faxed IOC s message informing them of the extension of the existing coastal tanker fleet for the month of October,1998 at reduced rates,viz.80% of the Charter Party rates prevailing till 30th August,1998.On receipt of the said letter,the respondent vide their letter dated 5th November,1998,protested against the revision of the rates for the vessel not being considered under the new bid and stated in unequivocal terms that it was not possible for them to accept the proposal of the Oil Co-ordination Committee,communicated to them vide letter dated 12th
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
October,1998.Yet again while responding to appellant s fax dated 31st December,1998,whereby the respondent was required to sign a provisional charter party by 4th January,1999,vide their letter dated 4th January,1999,the respondent,pointed out to the appellant that usual practice is that pending finalization of the new Charter,the existing terms and conditions of the Charter Party continue to apply and,therefore,they were willing to sign the agreement as contemplated by the appellant based on the existing terms and conditions
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Final Voyage Should the vessel be on her voyage towards the port of redelivery at the time of payment of hire is due,payment of hire shall be made for such length of time as Owners and Charterers may agree upon as being estimated time necessary to complete the voyage,less any disbursements made or expected to be made or expenses incurred or expected to be incurred by Charterers for owners account and less the estimated amount of bunker fuel remaining at the termination of the voyage and when the vessel is redelivered any overpayment shall be refunded by the owners or underpayment paid by Charterers
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Considering the will in the light of these principles,it seems to us that Lakshminarayan Iyer intended by his will to direct that his entire properties should be enjoyed by his widow during her lifetime but her interest in these properties should come to an end on her death, that all these properties in their entirety should thereafter be enjoyed as absolute owners by his daughter and her heirs with powers of alienation, gift, exchange and sale from generation to generation
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
If the testator had before his mind's eye his daughter and her heirs as the ultimate beneficiaries of his bounty, that intention could only be achieved by giving to the widow a limited estate, because by conferring a full Hindu widow's estate on her the daughter will, only have a mere spes successions under the Hindu law which may or may not mature and under the will her interest would Only be a contingent one in what was left indisposed of by the widow
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
It was strenuously argued by Mr. K. S. Krishnaswami Iyengar that Lakshminarayana Iyer was a Brahmin gentleman presumably versed in the sastras, living in a village in the southernmost part of the Madras State, that his idea of a restricted estate was more likely to be one analogous to a Hindu woman's estate than a life estate a,-, understood in English law wherein the estate is measured by use and not by duration, and that if this will was construed in the light of the notions of Lakshminarayana Iyer it should be held that the widow got under it a Hindu widow's estate and the daughter got under it a contingent remainder in the nature of spes and on her death there was nothing which could devolve on the plaintiff and he thus had no locus standi to question the alienations made by the widow
Semantic role: Argument
The will there recited that if a daughter or son was born to the testator during his lifetime, such son or daughter would be the owner of all his properties but if there was no son or daughter, his niece S. would get a bequest of a lakh of rupees, and the rest of the movable and immovable properties would remain in possession of his wife until her death, and after her these would remain in possession of his niece
Semantic role: Precedent
The last decision referred to was the decision of the Privy Council in Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram 1874 Indlaw PC 12 (1874-75) 2 I.A. 7 There a Hindu inhabitant of Bihar by a document of a testamentary character declared his daughter who had two daughters, as his heir, and after her two daughters together with their children were declared heirs and malik
Semantic role: Precedent
Chunderbutti Thakurain, my wife, to be enjoyed during her lifetime, in order that she may hold possession of all the properties and milkiut possessed by me, the declarant, during her lifetime, and by the payment of Government revenue, appropriate the profits derived therefrom, but that she should not by any means transfer the milkiut estates and the slaves; that after the death of my aforesaid wife the milkiut and household furniture shall devolve on Girdhari Thakur, my karta (adopted son
Semantic role: Precedent
Mr. Krisbnaswami lyengar, on the other hand, contended that the absence of any words in the will restricting her powers of alienation and putting a restraint on them, suggested a contrary intention and that the daughter's estate was described as coming into being after the estate of the widow and was not conferred on her simultaneously with the widow, and this connoted according to the notions of Hindus a full Hindu widow's estate
Semantic role: Argument
Thus,proceedings commenced before the Controller of Patents in the year 2000 when the appellant herein sought a patent of their device which was opposed by respondent no.3 in the year 2000.By then,the Patents (Amendment) Act,1999 had amended the Patents Act,1970 w.e.f.26.3.99.S.25 of the Patents Act,1970 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Act,1999 dealt with opposition to a patent vides S.25.At that time appeals against decisions made by the Controller pertaining to "pre-grant oppositions" under S.25 were maintainable before the High Court u/s.116(2) of the Indian Patents Act,1970
Semantic role: Facts
1) At any time within four months from the date of advertisement of the acceptance of a complete specification under this Act (or within such further period not exceeding one month in the aggregate as the Controller may allow on application made to him in the prescribed manner before the expiry of the four months aforesaid) any person interested may give notice to the Controller of opposition to the grant of the patent on any of the following grounds,namely: a.that the applicant for the patent or the person under or through whom he claims,wrongfully obtained the invention or any part thereof from him or from a person under or through whom he claims; b.that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification has been published before the priority date of the claim i.in any specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India on or after the 1st day of January,1912; or ii.in India or elsewhere,in any other document: Provided that the ground specified in Sub-cl.(ii) shall not be available where such publication does not constitute an anticipation of the invention by virtue of Sub-s.(2) or Sub-s.(3) of Section 29; that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is claimed in a claim of a complete specification published on or after the priority date of the applicant's claim and filed in pursuance of an application for a patent in India,being a claim of which the priority date is earlier than that of the applicant's claim; a.that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of that claim
Semantic role: Statute
Explanation -For the purposes of this clause,an invention relating to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been imported into India before that date except where such importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only; b.that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive step,having regard to the matter published as mentioned in cl.(b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority date of the applicant's claim; c.that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of this Act,or is not patentable under this Act; d.that the complete specification does not sufficiently and clearly describe the invention or the method by which it is to be performed; e.that the applicant has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by S.8 or has furnished the information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge; f.that in the case of a convention application,the application was not made within twelve months from the date of the first application for protection for the invention made in a convention country by the applicant or a person from whom he derives title
Semantic role: Statute
Where an application for a patent has been published but a patent has not been granted,any person may,in writing,represent by way of opposition to the Controller against the grant of patent on the ground- (a) that the applicant for the patent or the person under or through whom he claims,wrongfully obtained the invention or any part thereof from him or from a person under or through whom he claims; (b) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification has been published before the priority date of the claim (i) in any specification filed in pursuance of an application for a patent made in India on or after the 1st day of January,1912; or (ii) in India or elsewhere,in any other document: (c) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is claimed in a claim of a complete specification published on or after the priority date of the applicant's claim and filed in pursuance of an application for a patent in India,being a claim of which the priority date is earlier than that of the applicant's claim
Semantic role: Statute
For the purposes of this clause,an invention relating to a process for which a patent is claimed shall be deemed to have been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been imported into India before that date except where such importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only; (e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive step,having regard to the matter published as mentioned in cl.(b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority date of the applicant's claim; (f) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of this Act,or is not patentable under this Act; (g) that the complete specification does not sufficiently and clearly describe the invention or the method by which it is to be performed; (h) that the applicant has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by S.8 or has furnished the information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge; (i) that in the case of convention application,the application was not made within twelve months from the date of the first application for protection for the invention made in a convention country by the applicant or a person from whom he derives title; (j) that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly mentions the source or geographical origin of biological material used for the invention; (k) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is anticipated having regard to the knowledge,oral or otherwise,available within any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere,but on no other ground and the Controller shall,if requested by such person for being heard,hear him and dispose of such representation in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed
Semantic role: Statute
At any time after the grant of patent but before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of grant of a patent,any person interested may give notice of opposition to the Controller in the prescribed manner on any of the following grounds,namely: (a) that the patentee or the person under or through whom he claims,wrongfully obtained the invention or any part thereof from him or from a person under or through whom he claims; (b) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification has been published before the priority date of the claim- (c) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is claimed in a claim of a complete specification published on or after the priority date of the claim of the patentee and filed in pursuance of an application for a patent in India,being a claim of which the priority date is earlier than that of the claim of the patentee; Explanation.-For the purposes of this clause,an invention relating to a process for which a patent is granted shall be deemed to have been publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim if a product made by that process had already been imported into India before that date except where such importation has been for the purpose of reasonable trial or experiment only
Semantic role: Statute
e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and clearly does not involve any inventive step,having regard to the matter published as mentioned in cl.(b) or having regard to what was used in India before the priority date of the claim; (h) that the patentee has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by S.8 or has furnished the information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge; (i) that in the case of a patent granted on convention application,the application for patent was not made within twelve months from the date of the first application for protection for the invention made in a convention country or in India by the patentee or a person from whom he derives title; (j) that the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly mentions the source and geographical origin of biological material used for the invention; (k) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification was anticipated
Semantic role: Statute
Section 117G of the  principal Act was substituted vide Patents (Amendment) Act,2005.It reads as under: "Section 117G.Transfer of pending proceedings to Appellate Board.-All cases of appeals against any order or decision of the Controller and all cases pertaining to revocation of patent other than on a counter-claim in a suit for infringement and rectification of register pending before any High Court,shall be transferred to the Appellate Board from such date as may be notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette and the Appellate Board may proceed with the matter either de novo or from the stage it was so transferred
Semantic role: Statute
Vide cl.47 of Notes on Clauses attached to the Statement of Objects and Reasons,it has been clarified that S.64 is also amended vide Patents (Amendment) Act,2005 to confer wider jurisdiction on the Appellate Board in matters of revocation of patent,therefore,amended Section 117G which is brought into force only from 3.4.2007 dealt with transfer of pending proceedings from the High Court to the Appellate Board
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Further,according to the appellant,"pre-grant opposition" was filed by respondent no.3 under S.25(1) on 21.3.05.According to the appellant,though the Patents (Amendment) Act,2005,amended S.25 by enacting the amendment on 4.4.05 the said amendment was brought into force w.e.f.1.1.2005 and,therefore,it was open to respondent no.3 to challenge the grant of patent by invoking S.25(2) of the Patents Act,1970.According to the appellant,with the change in the structure of the Act providing for only one statutory appeal and that too only against the order granting patent under S.25(4),the appeal filed by respondent no.3 against pre-grant opposition order was not maintainable on 19.10.06 by which time,as stated above,S.25 stood restructured providing for a dichotomy between "pre-grant opposition" and "post-grant opposition
Semantic role: Argument
On the other hand,on behalf of respondent no.3,it has been urged that on 19.10.06 it had filed an appeal in the High Court under unamended S.116 of the parent Act; that,even though S.25 stood restructured w.e.f.1.1.05 on account of absence of notification bringing the amended law into force,Ss.116 and 117A (as amended) providing appeal to the Appellate Board came into force only with effect from 2.4.07 and,therefore,according to the said respondent,its first appeal being FAO No.293/06 continued to be governed by the law as it stood on 19.10.06 (on which date appeal to the High Court was maintainable); that,on 23.8.06 the "pre-grant opposition",filed by respondent no.3,stood rejected
Semantic role: Argument
However,on that date appeal against pre-grant opposition order was maintainable,under Section 116,to the High Court and,therefore,there is no merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the first appeal filed by respondent no.3 was misconceived; that,it is true that S.25 got restructured w.e.f.1.1.2005,however,such restructuring did not obliterate the first appeal filed by respondent no.3 on 19.10.2006
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
and lastly it was argued on behalf respondent no.3 that the appellant had filed its application for grant of patent on 14.6.2000,it was notified on 20.11.04,however,respondent no.3 had filed its "pre-grant opposition" under S.25(1) on 21.3.05 when the Patents (Amendment) Act,2005 was not promulgated (it was promulgated on 4.4.05) and,therefore,according to respondent no.3 its "pre-grant opposition" filed on 21.3.05 was valid and proper as respondent no.3 could not have invoked S.25(2) proceedings on that day,namely,21.3.05 as the law stood enacted bringing in S.25(2) only on 4.4.05.In the peculiar circumstances of this case it was urged on behalf of respondent no.3 that no interference is called for by this Court in this batch of civil appeals
Semantic role: Argument
In the special circumstances of this case,particularly when after 2.4.07 appeals against orders rejecting "pre-grant opposition" are not maintainable and particularly when FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 were filed by respondent no.3 prior to 2.4.07 under the old law,we are of the view that these two appeals shall be heard and decided by the High Court in accordance with law
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Therefore,there is no point in transferring the pending FAO No.292/06 and FAO No.293/06 to the Appellate Board which has no authority to decide matters concerning "pre-grant opposition".Moreover,it may be noted that even Section 117G,which refers to transfer of pending proceedings to the Appellate Board,is also brought into force vide Notification dated 3.4.07.Keeping in mind the peculiar nature of the problem in hand,we are of the view that ends of justice
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
These recommendations were accepted by the State Government vide the approval of the cabinet dated 7.12.2007.Following this decision,the Director General of Prisons (Administration and Reforms),Uttar Pradesh,vide letter dated 04.06.2008,requested the District Magistrate,Shahjahanpur to send all the relevant records to the State Government for publication of notification u/ss.4(1) and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter "the Act").The land suggested for such acquisition by the Divisional Land Utility Committee was
Semantic role: Facts
2.Whether or not the State Government was justified in dispensing with the inquiry which is mandated to be conducted under Section 5A of the Act,especially when one year elapsed between the notifications u/s.4 and the one u/s.6.They further stated that the High Court had erred insofar as it upheld the factum of urgency in the absence of a categorical finding,an enquiry under Section 5A would have been detrimental to public interest
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
8 SCC 705 2007 Indlaw SC 554,wherein this Court construed the status of a person's right to property after deletion of Art.19(1)(f) from Part III.By referring to various international covenants,namely,the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights,this Court held that even though right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right but it would however be given an express recognition as a legal right and also as a human right
Semantic role: Precedent
In order to remedy this shortcoming in the Act of 1894,an amendment by way of incorporation of Section 5A was introduced on 11th July,1923.The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the said Amendment is as follows: "The Land Acquisition Act I of 1894 does not provide that persons having an interest in land which it is proposed to acquire,shall have the right of objecting to such acquisition; nor is Government bound to enquire into and consider any objections that may reach them
Semantic role: Statute
In a recent judgment of this Court in Essco Fabs 2008 Indlaw SC 2494 (supra),(2009) 2 SCC 377,this Court,after considering previous judgments as also the provisions of S.17 of the Act held: "Whereas sub-s.(1) of S.17 deals with cases of "urgency",sub-s.(2) of the said section covers cases of "sudden change in the channel of any navigable river or other unforeseen emergency".But even in such cases i.e.cases of "urgency" or "unforeseen emergency",enquiry contemplated by Section 5-A cannot ipso facto be dispensed with which is clear from sub-s.(4) of S.17 of the Act
Semantic role: Precedent
A meeting for selection of the suitable site for construction was held on 27th June,2008,and the proposal for such acquisition and construction was sent to the Director,Land Acquisition on 2nd of July,2008.This was in turn forwarded to the State Government by the Director on 22nd of July,2008.After due consideration of the forwarded proposal and documents,the State Government issued the S.4 notification,along with S.17 notification on 21st of August,2008.These notifications were published in local newspapers on 24th of September,2008
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
Thereafter,over a period of 9 months,the State Government deposited 10% of compensation payable to the landowners,along with 10% of acquisition expenses and 70% of cost of acquisition was deposited,and the proposal for issuance of S.6 declaration was sent to the Director,Land Acquisition on 19th of June,2009.The Director in turn forwarded all these to the State Government on 17th July,2009,and the State Government finally issued the S.6 declaration on 10th of August,2009.This declaration was published in the local dailies on 17th of August,2009
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision
In paragraph 15 of the writ petition,it has been clearly stated that there was a time gap of more than 11 months between S.4 and S.6 notifications,which demonstrates that there was no urgency in the State action which could deny the petitioners their right under Section 5A.In the counter which was filed in this case by the State before the High Court,it was not disputed that the time gap between S.4 notification read with Section 17,and S.6 notification was about 11 months
Semantic role: Ratio of the decision