made new text for streamlit spaces

Dict_Results.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+[{"Title": "Asstt. Cit vs Hewlett Packard Ltd. on 14 August, 2001", "DocID": 34884, "matching_columns": ["\"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical information to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder (subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in article 3 hereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo.\n\n(i) In respect of the Technology conveyed, Technical Information and Technical assistance to be provided under article 3.1 by way of lump sum in the net sum of US $ 1.1 million free of all Indian taxes.\n\n(ii) In respect of the royalty payable for the Licensed Products manufactured by HCL in India, a fixed royalty of eight hundred US dollars (US $  800) shall be paid on each unit of the licensed product manufactured by HCL in India and sold or leased.\n\n(iii) In respect of licensing of Apollo Software Programs under article 9 thereof, the applicable license fees for each Apollo Software Program reproduced and sublicensed to India end users together with the licensed product, under the then current Apollo Software Program Price List under Ext. 4 of the Agreement which be as per Apollo, is prevailing distributor price list. It is agreed that the price for the operating system, AEGIS and DOMAIN/IX, will during the term of this agreement, not exceed seven hundred US dollars (US $ 700) as stated in Ext. 4.\n\n(iv) In respect of the documentation under article hereof, the applicable license fees for each copy of the documentation reproduced under the List of Documentation under Ext. 6, will be five US Dollars (US $ 5) per copy.\"", "\"4.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the technology and any other information which Apollo consider proprietary to itself and its license and which will be conveyed and disclose by Apollo to HCL in carrying out the provisions of this agreement is and shall remain confidential during the terms of this agreement and after the expiration or termination hereof for any reason whatsoever, until such time as same shall enter the public domain or otherwise become generally known without a material breach of this agreement by HCL.\n\n4.2. HCL agrees that they shall maintain the confidentiality of the technology and said other information conveyed and disclosed by Apollo hereunder and shall not without the prior written consent of Apollo disclose same or allow same to be disclosed to anyone, except to their management and employees and to any of HCL's sub-licensee(s) sub-contractor(s), agents or suppliers and then only to the extent required for the proper and authorised use of the technology hereunder, unless the technology and said other information;\n\n(a) are contained at the time of disclosure by Apollo hereunder or thereafter in a patent or patent application or other printed publication made by a third party without a breach of this agreement by HCL; or\n \n\n(b) are acquired by HCL from a third party lawfully in possession of same and not subject to any contractual or fiduciary obligation to Apollo to maintain the secrecy of same. HCL agree that, prior to any disclosure of the technology and said other information, they shall enter into confidentiality agreement, containing in substance the provisions of this article 4, with their management and employees and with any of the HCL is sub-licensee(s) sub-contractor(s), agents, or suppliers to whom such disclosure is to be made.\"", "\"5.9 HCL shall use its best efforts to maintain a standard of quality and workmanship in its manufacture of the licensed products equal to that of Apollo and shall manufacture the licensed products out of materials supplied by parties to be mutually agreed between HCL and Apollo. HCL shall permit representatives of Apollo, upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, to inspect the manufacturing facilities of HCL used for the manufacture of the licensed products. In particular, Apollo's representative shall be permitted to inspect and monitor the quality control procedures to be used by HCL, as well as to inspect samples of the licensed products and the compliance by HCL, with the quality standards for the licensed products contained in the technology.\"", "\"8.4 HCL agrees to use its best efforts to ensure that each end user so sublicensed continues to comply with the terms of the sub-license. HCL shall maintain records specifically identifying each, Software, Program stocked by HCL and provided to end-users customers of HCL under this procedure, the quantities of such Software Program stocked and provided and the identity of the end-user customer to which they are provided; such records shall be made available to Apollo during regular business upon reasonable notice for purposes of enforcement of this agreement.\"", "\"8.5 Apollo may appoint independent third parties in India to audit HCL's records on software licenses granted to end-users in India 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter to determine exact number of sub-license granted to end-users.\n\nApollo shall charge HCL applicable license fees for sub-license and update sublicensed to India end-user customers under Apollo's Software Program Price List. HCL shall make payment for total applicable license fees due to Apollo immediately on receiving approval from the Reserve Bank of India for remittance of license fees payable. HCL shall remit payment by telegraphic transfer directly to Apollo's designated bank account in West Germany as specified by Apollo. Remittance to Apollo shall be in US dollars at the exchange rate prevailing at the date of remittance. It shall be the sole responsibility of HCL to obtain all necessary approvals to make payment to Apollo. Full payment of applicable license fees shall be made to Apollo by HCL not later than forty-five days after the end of the calendar quarter. Any delay in payment beyond the 45 days period shall entitle Apollo to charge HCL daily interest at the current prime interest rate fixed by the Bank of India.\"", "\"12.1 HCL shall prepare the factory site designated for manufacture of the licensed protect in consultation with Apollo.\n\n12.2 In order to assist HCL in preparing the production of licensed products Apollo may if requested provide assistance including supply of the following date and information. These data shall be in accordance with accepted international customary standard examples as follows:\n\n(a) Plan for assembly line.\n\n(b) Plan for manpower arrangement.\n\n(c) Plan for equipment layout.\n\n(d) Plan for infrastructure e.g. water supply, electricity, air-conditioning, transportation and communication.\n\n(e) Plan for installation and operation of equipments for manufacture.\n\n(f) Plan for production management.\n\n(g) Plan for test and repair of licensed products.\n\nHCL shall submit a production schedule to Apollo within 30 days after parties execute this agreement.\n\nArticle 14 dealing with duration and termination reads as :\n\n\"14.1 Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall have an initial term of 5 years commencing on the effective date hereof. In the event that this agreement is not terminated earlier than said full initial term, then HCL may thereafter continue to manufacture, use and sell the licensed products under the rights granted herein without the obligation of paying any additional consideration to Apollo, including the right to manufacture, use and sell under any patents included in the technology covering the licensed products, provided that HCL shall make no claims against Apollo with respect to the licensed products.\"", "\"14. In our view the principles of Vienna Conversion is guidelines for the countries who are party to this convention. It is also empathic to explain that when an agreement is entered between two countries that should be fulfillled by following its terms and conditions. In our considered view Indian and Italian Governments entered into 'an agreement for avoiding the double taxation in both the countries. Therefore, provisions of section 90 are also overriding on provisions to section 9(1)(vi).\""], "matching_indents": ["\"(ii) Lump sum know how fee : US Dollar 11 lakhs of taxes with tax liability to be borne by the Indian Company.\"\n", "\"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical information to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder (subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in article 3 hereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo.\n", "\"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical information to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder (subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in article 3 hereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo.\n", "\"4.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the technology and any other information which Apollo consider proprietary to itself and its license and which will be conveyed and disclose by Apollo to HCL in carrying out the provisions of this agreement is and shall remain confidential during the terms of this agreement and after the expiration or termination hereof for any reason whatsoever, until such time as same shall enter the public domain or otherwise become generally known without a material breach of this agreement by HCL.\n", "\"5.9 HCL shall use its best efforts to maintain a standard of quality and workmanship in its manufacture of the licensed products equal to that of Apollo and shall manufacture the licensed products out of materials supplied by parties to be mutually agreed between HCL and Apollo. HCL shall permit representatives of Apollo, upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, to inspect the manufacturing facilities of HCL used for the manufacture of the licensed products. In particular, Apollo's representative shall be permitted to inspect and monitor the quality control procedures to be used by HCL, as well as to inspect samples of the licensed products and the compliance by HCL, with the quality standards for the licensed products contained in the technology.\"\n", "\"14.1 Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall have an initial term of 5 years commencing on the effective date hereof. In the event that this agreement is not terminated earlier than said full initial term, then HCL may thereafter continue to manufacture, use and sell the licensed products under the rights granted herein without the obligation of paying any additional consideration to Apollo, including the right to manufacture, use and sell under any patents included in the technology covering the licensed products, provided that HCL shall make no claims against Apollo with respect to the licensed products.\"\n", "Registered Post\n \n\nNo. FC : 71(87)-Comp./SCS.\n", "Government of India\n \n\nMinistry of Industry\n \n\nDepartment of Industrial Development\n \n\nSecretariat for Industrial Approvals\n \n\nSpecial cases section\n \n\nNew Delhi, the 20-11-1991\n \n\nM/s HCL Ltd.,\n \n\n608, Siddharth,\n \n\n96, Nehru Place,\n \n\nNew Delhi-110 019.\n", "Subject : Application from M/s. HCL Ltd., for foreign collaboration with M/s Apollo Computer Inc. USA for the manufacture of microprocessor based CAD/GAM work section.\n", "\"Subject to written approval of the appropriate government agencies and departments of the United States Export Licensing Authority and an conditions imposed on such approval and compliance therewith, Apollo hereby convey and grants to HCL exclusive right to manufacture, maintain, use and sell the licensed product in India in accordance with pursuant to and under the Technology. Said technology relating to the manufacture of the licensed products in India which is owned by Apollo as of the effective date of this agreement.\n", "\"Apollo shall deliver the tangible technical information constituting the technology, in accordance with Ext. 3 be prepaid air mail or air freight C.I.F. or by such other means which are reasonable and obtain from HCL acknowledgement of such delivery to HCL's registered office in India or to such other location in India which HCL will designate. Apollo shall provide two copies of said technical information in a form capable of being copies in the English language. HCL may, at their own expense, translate same into the Indian language, subject to the confidentiality provisions of article 4 hereof. Apollo shall use all practical means to ensure that all the technical information under the technology provided to HCL is accurate, comprehensive and up todate and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, comprehensive and up todate and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, Apollo shall at its own cost rectify the inaccuracy without delay. Apollo will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by HCL in respect of such inaccuracies.\n", "\"Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other articles of this agreement, then the provisions of those articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this article.\"\n", "\"Article, VIII-A\n \n\n(1) Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other state.\n", "(2) However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that state. But insofar as the fees for technical services are concerned, the tax so charged shall not exceed 20 per cent of the gross amount of such fees.\n", "(3) The term \"royalties\" as used in this article means payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.\n", "\"The recitals in the agreement as also the provisions contained in clause (6) thereof showed that the obligation undertaken by the assessed did not end merely with the handing over of the secret processes, but also extended to helping the Indian company in exploiting these processes property, efficiently and economically. The handing over of the know-how or secret processes was intimately connected and concerned with the obligation which was undertaken by the assessed in clause (6). Therefore, it was properly held that part of the technical fees, accrued in India.\"\n", "\"Held, that, firstly, the agreement between the assessed and the foreign company was for a period of ten years only. Secondly, it was in respect of certain secret or patent formulations owned or controlled by the foreign company. The payment, though called 'Research contribution' in the agreement, was nothing but the consideration correlated to the extent of the exploitation of the secret formulations and patent rights and various other rights belonging to the foreign company by the assessed in India and that it was for the exclusive right to manufacture the products that the payment was made and it was nothing else but 'royalty' as known to law and to the international commercial world in the context of such agreements. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 48,698 made by the assessed to the foreign company during the relevant period was royalty payment and was liable to deduction of tax at other lower rate of 50 per cent as prescribed in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971.\"\n"]}, {"Title": "Vodafone India Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 10 December, 2014", "DocID": 13060393, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": [" 209. The judgment of the Supreme Court would undoubtedly be the\n        assessee's main plank and supports its case to a considerable extent,\n        especially as it is the very agreements that fall for consideration even in\n        the proceedings relating to the assessee's assessment. Mr. Salve rightly\n        contended that the Supreme Court had analyzed the Framework\n        Agreements and held that the call options are contractual rights; that\n        they vested and continue to vest in the assessee and that they had not been\n        transferred or assigned by the assessee. We proceed, as indeed we must,\n        that before the ITAT, a very heavy burden would rest upon the Revenue\n        even regarding the assessee's assessment in view of the judgment in\n        Vodafone's case. Every Court, Tribunal, authority or person is bound to\n        give the observations of the Supreme Court, including in respect of the\n        Framework Agreements, their full effect. The suggestion that they are\n        casual observations is rejected. A view to the contrary would tantamount\n        to judicial indiscipline. This is not just our prima facie view. Needless to\n\n", "Framework agreement 2006                                   Framework agreement 2007.\n", "4.5 below and at a fair market value determined in\naccordance with Clause 4.6 below.                           (i) at any time, and from time to time,\n                                                            and to the extent GSPL or any of its\nGoldspot may exercise the Put Option at any time after:     Affiliates or any Person to which the Call\n                                                            Option is assigned pursuant to Clause\n", "(a) GSPL or its nominee issues the Subscription Notice      4.10(a) becomes eligible under all\nfor subscribing to such number of Subscription Shares       applicable Indian laws or Regulations to\nwhich would result in GSPL or its nomin:.e holding          hold such Put Shares. For the avoidance\nmore than 50% of the issued share capital of Centrino;      of doubt, in the event that the Sectoral\nor                                                          Cap is increased to permit an increased\n                                                            level of foreign ownership of HEL, AG\n", "        2.(47) \"transfer\", in relation to a capital asset, includes,-\n", "49 | P a g e\n                                                 Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "49 | P a g e\n                                                 Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "49 | P a g e\n                                                 Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "                   Hutchison Essar Limited (now Vodafone India Ltd.)\n\n50 | P a g e\n                                                   Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "        \"ThisShareholder's Agreement (this \"Agreement\") is entered into on 5 July 2007,\n        among:\n", "        (1) Nadal Trading Company Private Limited (formerly known as Cerntino Trading\n        Company Private' limited). a company incorporated under the Companies Ad , 956, and\n        having its registered office at Meher Chambers, 4\" and 5th Floors. RK Marg, Ballard\n        Estate. Mumbai 400 038 (herein after referred to as \"Nadal\") of the FIRST PART;\n", "        (2) ND Callus Info Services Private Limited, a company incorporated under the\n        Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at 15. Aurangzebe Road, New Delhi\n        110011 (hereinafter referred to as. \"NDC'') of the SECOND PART;\n", "        Meaning of international transaction.\n", "               \"WHEREAS:\n", "               (A)   CGP is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the\n                     Vendor, CGP owns, directly or indirectly, companies\n                     which control the Company Interests.\n", "               (B)   The Vendor has agreed to produce the sale of, and the\n                     Purchaser has agreed to purchase, the entire issued\n                     share capital of CGP on the terms and conditions set out\n                     in this agreement. The Vendor has further agreed to\n                     procure the assignment of, and the Purchaser has\n                     agreed to accept an assignment of, the Loans on the\n                     terms and conditions set out in this Agreement and the\n                     Loan Assignments.\n", "95 | P a g e\n                                              Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "95 | P a g e\n                                              Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "(a)     The Call Option Provides an unconditional right to VISPL to buy the\nunderlying shares, whereas the Put Option provides a right in favour of\nAS/AG to require VISPL to purchase the underlying shares.\n", "(b)     While providing two separate rights it has been ensured under the\n2007 Framework Agreements that the rights of AS/AG and VISPL are\n99 | P a g e\n                                        Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "      \"158. SHA also provides for matters such as restriction of transfer of\n      shares i.e. Right of First Refusal (ROFR). Right of First Offer (ROFO). Drag-Along\n      Rights (DARs) and Tag-Along Rights (TARs). Pre-emption Rights. Call option. Put\n      option. Subscription option etc. SHA in a characteristic Joint Venture Enterprise\n      may regulate its affairs on the basis of various provisions enumerated above,\n      because Joint Venture enterprise may deal with matters regulating the ownership\n      and voting rights of shares in the company, control and manage the affairs of the\n      company, and also may make provisions for resolution of disputes between the\n      shareholders. Many of the above mentioned provisions find a place in SHAs, FWAs,\n      Term Sheet Agreement etc. in the present case, hence, we may refer to some of\n      those provisions.\n", "         (i)     Oswal Fats And Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner\n                 Administration) (2010) 4 SCC 728.\n", "The assessee is an Indian Company which was incorporated on 16 March,\n1999 under the Companies Act, 1956, in the name of 3 Global Services\nPrivate Limited ('3GSPL'). 3GSPL was part of Hutchison Whampoa Limited\n('HWL') Group. It became part of Vodafone International Holdings B.V.\n\n\n\n\n115 | P a g e\n                                        Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "        (a)Terminate the SPA; or\n", "        (a)Terminate the SPA; or\n", "        (b)     Complete the SPA to the extent practicable given the defaults\n            which have occurred; or\n\n\n123 | P a g e\n                                         Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "        (a)Terminate the SPA; or\n", "        (b)     Complete the SPA to the extent practicable given the defaults\n            which have occurred; or\n\n\n123 | P a g e\n                                         Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", "        \"GSPL transfer agreement means the business transfer agreement to\n        be entered into between GSPL and an affiliate of HWL relating to\n        call centre disposal substantially in the form attached to the\n        disclosure letter\"\n"]}, {"Title": "Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hewlett Packard Ltd. on 14 August, 2001", "DocID": 1282775, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["  \"(ii) Lump sum know how fee : US Dollar 11 lakhs of taxes) with tax liability to be borne by the Indian Company.\" \n", " \"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical\ninformation to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder\n(subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in Article 3\nhereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo. \n", " \"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical\ninformation to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder\n(subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in Article 3\nhereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo. \n", "  \"4.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the technology and any other information which Apollo consider proprietary to itself and its licence and which will be conveyed and disclose by Apollo to HCL in carrying out the provisions of this agreement is and shall remain confidential during the terms of this agreement and after the expiration or termination hereof for any reason whatsoever, until such time as same shall enter the public domain or otherwise become generally known without a material breach of this agreement by HCL. \n", "  \"5.9 HCL shall use its best efforts to maintain a standard of quality and workmanship in its manufacture of the licensed products equal to that of Apollo and shall manufacture the licensed products out of materials supplied by parties to be mutually agreed between HCL and Apollo. HCL shall permit representatives of Apollo, upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, to inspect the manufacturing facilities of HCL used for the manufacture of the licensed products. In particular, Apollo's representative shall be permitted to inspect and monitor the quality control procedures to be used by HCL, as well as to inspect samples of the licensed products and the compliance by HCL, with the quality standards for the licensed products contained in the technology.\" \n", "  \"14.1 Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall have an initial term of 5 years commencing on the effective date hereof. In the event that this agreement is not terminated earlier than said full initial term, then HCL may thereafter continue to manufacture, use and sell the licensed products under the rights granted herein without the obligation of paying any additional consideration to Apollo, including the right to manufacture, use and sell under any patents included in the technology covering the licensed products, provided that HCL shall make no claims against Apollo with respect to the licensed products.\"  \n", "REGISTERED POST  \n \n\n No. FC : 71(87)-Comp./SCS.  \n", " Government of India  \n \n\n Ministry of Industry  \n \n\n Department of Industrial Development  \n \n\n Secretariat for Industrial Approvals  \n \n\n Special cases section  \n \n\n New Delhi, the 20th Nov., 1991  \n \n\n M/s HCL Ltd., \n \n\n 608, Siddharth, \n \n\n 96, Nehru Place,\t \n \n\n New Delhi- 110019. \n", " Subject : Application from M/s HCL Ltd., for foreign collaboration with M/s\nApollo Computer Inc.  USA for the manufacture of microprocessor based\nCAD/GAM work section. \n", "  \"Subject to written approval of the appropriate Government agencies and departments of the United States Export Licensing Authority and all conditions imposed on such approval and compliance therewith, Apollo hereby convey and grants to HCL exclusive right to manufacture, maintain, use and sell the licensed product in India in accordance with pursuant to and under the Technology. Said technology relating to the manufacture of the licensed products in India which is owned by Apollo as of the effective date of this agreement. \n", " \"Apollo shall deliver the tangible technical information constituting the technology, in accordance with Ext. 3 be prepaid air mail or air freight C.I.F. or\nby such other means which are reasonable and obtain from HCL acknowledgement of such delivery to HCL's registered office in India or to such other location in India which HCL will designate. Apollo shall provide two copies of said technical information in a form capable of being copies in the English language. HCL may, at their own expense, translate same into the Indian language, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Article 4 hereof, Apollo shall use all practical means to ensure that all the technical information under the technology provided to HCL is accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, comprehensive and up-to-date and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, Apollo shall at its own cost rectify the inaccuracy without delay. Apollo will not be-liable for any loss or damage suffered by HCL in respect of such inaccuracies. \n", "  \"Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other articles of this agreement, then the provisions of those articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this article-\" \n", " \"Alt, VIII-A  \n \n\n (1) Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. \n", " (2) However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that State. But insofar as the fees for technical services are concerned, the tax so charged shall not exceed 20 per cent of the gross amount of such fees. \n", " (3) The term \"royalties\" as used in this article means payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. \n", "  \"The recitals in the agreement as also the provisions contained in Clause (6) thereof showed that the obligation undertaken by the assessee did not end merely with the handing over of the secret processes, but also extended to helping the Indian company in exploiting these processes property, efficiently and economically. The handing over of the know-how or secret processes was intimately connected and concerned with the obligation which was undertaken by the assessee in Clause (6). Therefore, it was properly held that part of the technical fees, accrued in India.\" \n", "  \"Held, that, firstly, the agreement between the assessee and the foreign company was for a period of ten years only. Secondly, it was in respect of certain secret or patent formulations owned or controlled by the foreign company. The payment, though called 'Research contribution' in the agreement, was nothing but the consideration correlated to the extent of the exploitation of the secret formulations and patent rights and various other rights belonging to the foreign company by the assessee in India and that it was for the exclusive right to manufacture the products that the payment was made and it was nothing else but 'royalty' as known to law and to the international commercial world in the context of such agreements. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 48,698 made by the assessee to the foreign company during the relevant period was royalty payment and was liable to deduction of tax at other lower rate of 50 per cent as prescribed in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971.\" \n"]}, {"Title": "Aamir Raza Husain And Anr. vs Cinevistaas Limited And Ors. on 18 September, 2002", "DocID": 886570, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["\"7.7 The grant of rights, representations, warranties, indemnities and, confidentiality obligations contained herein shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.\"   \n", "\"Monday June 24, 2002\n \n\nThis is to state that a meeting was held at the Circuit House, Kargil on Sunday, June 23, 2002 at 18.30 Hrs. in the presence of Shri T. Namgyal, S.P. Kargil. The following were also present- \n", " From Cinevista  \n \n\n", "  1. Mr. Sunil Mehta  \n \n\n"]}, {"Title": "Siemens Aktiengesellschaft vs Income-Tax Officer on 6 July, 1987", "DocID": 1967060, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": [" Article III(1) - Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below, tax shall not be levied in one of the territories on the industrial or commercial profits of an enterprise of the other territory unless profits are derived in the first-mentioned territory through a permanent establishment of the said enterprise situated in the first-mentioned territory. If profits are so derived, tax may be levied in the first-mentioned territory on the profits attributable to  the  said permanent   establishment.  \n", " Article III(3) - For the purpose of this Agreement the term 'industrial or commercial profits' shall not include income in the form of rents, royalties, interest, dividends, management charges, remuneration for labour or personal services or income from the operation of ships or aircraft but shall include rents or royalties in respect of cinematographic films.  \n", " Article IX - Income from immovable property may be taxed in the territory in which the property is situated. For this purpose any rent or royalty or other income derived from the operation of a mine, quarry or any other extraction of natural resources shall be regarded as income from immovable property.  \n", "To support this proposition, it was submitted that in Article V and subsequent Articles of the D.T.A. Agreement, the species of income out of the types of income which were enumerated in Article III(3) which alone fell within the ambit of taxation were spelt out. Unless such types of income referred to in Article III(3) fell within the species specified in Article V or any of the subsequent Articles of the D.T.A. Agreement, such amount, it was contended, would not be taxable in India. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust [1983] 144 ITR 146.\n", "Explanation 2. For the purposes of this clause, \"royalty\" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head \"Capital gains\") for :--\n", "Explanation 2. For the purposes of this clause, \"royalty\" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head \"Capital gains\") for :--\n", "(i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ;\n", " The words 'subject to the provisions of paragraph (3)' in art. III(1) would in our view indicate that while 'industrial or commercial income' of the foreign enterprise are not taxable in India, the rents, royalties, interest, dividends, etc., derived by the foreign enterprise from  sources in India are taxable....Further, in our opinion, the items : rents, royalties, dividends, interest, etc., are taxable only when they satisfy the conditions mentioned for their liability to tax as envisaged in the various specific articles such as arts. V, VI, VII, VIII, etc.  \n \n\nonly that type of royalties would be taxable to which there may be reference in Article V and Articles subsequent thereto. The only reference to 'royalty' is in Article IX and the royalty envisaged by such Article is only that royalty derived from the operation of a mine, quarry or any other extraction of natural resources.\n", "It has come to the notice of the Board that sometimes effect to the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement is not given by the assessing officers when they find that the provisions of the agreement are not in conformity with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n", " 6.1. In consideration of the supply of technical know-how and training of Siemens India personnel by Siemens with regard to Contract Products (for which Siemens India or its licensees already held manufacturing licences granted by the Government of India) as well as in consideration of the supply of technical know-how on New Developments, Siemens India shall pay to Siemens fees at the rates specified in Annex A hereto, on the basis of the \"ex-factory selling price\" of the respective Contract Products and parts thereof manufactured and sold by Siemens India and its licensees during the validity of this agreement as defined in Article 9.1 hereof. With regard to this Agreement, Contract Products shall be considered as \"sold\" when invoiced, by Siemens India to the purchaser ; or if not invoiced, when delivered, dispatched or set apart for the own use of Siemens India.  \n", "The payment is for the supply of technical know-how, the training of Siemens India personnel as also for the supply of technical know-how on new developments for contract products. Contract products are those products which have been set out in Annexure 'A' to each of the relevant agreements. In the present agreement they are motors, low voltage switchgear, switchboards, high voltage switchgear, etc. The term \"new developments\" has also been defined. This definition comes in para 1.5 at page 126 of paper book No. I and reads as under :--\n", " 11.1.1. For services rendered and to be rendered in Germany, a technical assistance fee of 1% of the total aggregate of the net selling prices of the CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS produced and sold by BEL reduced by the landed cost of the components and raw materials supplied by SIEMENS in accordance with Clause 9 and consumed in the production of the said CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS sold.  \n", " 11.1.1. For services rendered and to be rendered in Germany, a technical assistance fee of 1% of the total aggregate of the net selling prices of the CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS produced and sold by BEL reduced by the landed cost of the components and raw materials supplied by SIEMENS in accordance with Clause 9 and consumed in the production of the said CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS sold.  \n", "8.1 In consideration of the documentation prepared and transmitted in Germany and the technical assistance rendered in Germany comprising the training of CCI personnel by SIEMENS in Germany as per Article 3, CCI shall pay to SIEMENS a lump sum payment of DM 1,30,000 (one hundred thirty-thousand Destuche Marks), subject to the applicable Indian taxes, in three equal instalments as detailed below :\n"]}, {"Title": "Microfibres Inc vs Girdhar And Co. And Ors. on 13 January, 2006", "DocID": 1210059, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["Provided further that no suit or any other proceeding for relief under this subsection shall be instituted in any court below the court of District Judge.\n", "3) In any suit or any other proceeding for relief under Sub-section (2), every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled Under Section 19 shall be available as a ground of defense.\n"]}, {"Title": "Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Stanton & Stavely (Overseas) Ltd. on 16 August, 1982", "DocID": 1479319, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["  \"income by way of royalties received from Government or a local authority or any Indian concern.\" \n", "  \"In the case of a non-resident company which has not made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within India, its income by way of any interest or fees for rendering technical services received from Government or a local authority or any Indian concern.'\" \n", "\"(i) Forth to sell and deliver to IISCO copies of all such detailed drawing and specifications as IISCO may reasonably require for the purchase and installation and operation of the Specialist Plant :\n", "\"(i) Forth to sell and deliver to IISCO copies of all such detailed drawing and specifications as IISCO may reasonably require for the purchase and installation and operation of the Specialist Plant :\n", "(ii) To lend to IISCO as and when may be required by IISCO on reasonable notice for temporary service with IISCO a qualified engineer whose duties shall be to supervise the erection of the Kulti extension and in particular the installation and starting up of the Specialist Plant;\n", "  \"For the purpose of the manufacture of Stanton products (but not further of otherwise) Stanton hereby agrees to grant to IISCO and IISCO hereby agrees to take for the continuance of this agreement or the respec\n\ntive lives of the Stanton patents whichever shall be the shorter full and free licence and authority to manufacture in territory as aforesaid Stanton products in accordance with the specifications of the said Stanton patents or any part thereof or any process or invention therein described and to sell the same for use within IISCO territory. Every such licence shall be in the form specified in the First Schedule hereto.\" \n", "  \"For the purpose of the manufacture of Stanton products (but not further of otherwise) Stanton hereby agrees to grant to IISCO and IISCO hereby agrees to take for the continuance of this agreement or the respec\n\ntive lives of the Stanton patents whichever shall be the shorter full and free licence and authority to manufacture in territory as aforesaid Stanton products in accordance with the specifications of the said Stanton patents or any part thereof or any process or invention therein described and to sell the same for use within IISCO territory. Every such licence shall be in the form specified in the First Schedule hereto.\" \n", "\"(a) A commission at the specified rate (as hereinafter defined) on the nett selling price (as hereinafter defined) of all Stanton products manufactured and sold by IISCO during the continuance of this agreement, such commission to become due and payable in the manner specified in Clause 6 hereof. The specified rate in respect of all Stanton products manufactured prior to the reduced commission date shall be three per centum and thereafter one and a half percentum. The nett selling price above referred to shall mean the nett price at the plant of manufacture realised by IISCO :\n", "(b) Except always in so far as may otherwise be agreed in writing from time to time an amount equivalent to the cost to Stanton of all salary and travelling expenses (including board while in IISCO territory) of the engineer whose services shall be lent to IISCO pursuant to Clause 2 of this agreement and all other engineers or other employees of Stanton whose services Stanton may hereafter agree shall be lent to IISCO in connection with the operation of any plant of IISCO for manufacture of Stanton products or the construction of any plant by IISCO for such purpose or advice in regard thereto, such payment to be made on monthly account nett against invoices ;\n", "\"(a) A commission at the specified rate (as hereinafter defined) on the nett selling price (as hereinafter defined) of all Stanton products manufactured and sold by IISCO during the continuance of this agreement, such commission to become due and payable in the manner specified in Clause 6 hereof. The specified rate in respect of all Stanton products manufactured prior to the reduced commission date shall be three per centum and thereafter one and a half percentum. The nett selling price above referred to shall mean the nett price at the plant of manufacture realised by IISCO :\n", "(b) Except always in so far as may otherwise be agreed in writing from time to time an amount equivalent to the cost to Stanton of all salary and travelling expenses (including board while in IISCO territory) of the engineer whose services shall be lent to IISCO pursuant to Clause 2 of this agreement and all other engineers or other employees of Stanton whose services Stanton may hereafter agree shall be lent to IISCO in connection with the operation of any plant of IISCO for manufacture of Stanton products or the construction of any plant by IISCO for such purpose or advice in regard thereto, such payment to be made on monthly account nett against invoices ;\n", "(c) Amounts equivalent to any sums paid by Stanton to any engineers or other employees of IISCO who may be sent by IISCO to Stanton's plant (for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby agreed and declared that all salaries and travelling expenses including board while in England of any such employees shall be borne solely by IISCO).\" \n", "  \"If during the continuance of this agreement either party shall make, discover or acquire any further invention, patent, process or design in connection with or improvements upon or addition to the methods of manufacturing Stanton products or any modifications of or developments in machinery or apparatus used in connection therewith such party shall (unless prevented by the terms of any such acquisition) communicate the same to the other party and shall ensure if it shall have acquired the right so to do that such other shall receive full and sufficient licences, information and assistance thereon and in relation thereto and be enabled to use the same for the manufacture (in the case of IISCO) of Stanton products in IISCO territory during the continuance of this agreement and in accordance therewith without payment other than such as is hereinbefore provided or (in the case of Stanton) of or otherwise in relation to any products of Stanton (but not for the manufacture of Stanton products in IISCO territory during the continuance of this agreement) PROVIDED ALWAYS that if such rights shall only have been acquired by the one party subject to payment, that party shall be entitled to require from the other and the other shall if it shall desire to use such rights pay a fair proportion (to be agreed between the parties hereto or failing such agreement to be determined by the respective auditors for the time being of the parties or an umpire previously appointed by such auditors) of such payment.\" \n", "\"8. As regards the foreign participant's tax liability also, the first question would be whether the amount received for the supply of technical know-how, is a receipt on capital account or on revenue account. The answer would again depend on the facts of the case. It has to be observed that the nature of the outgoing in the hands of the Indian participant will not always be determinative of the nature of the receipt in the hands of the foreign party. In the U.K., it has been held by courts that a receipt from the sale of know-how would be a capital receipt only where the sale of the technical know-how or the imparting of technical knowledge and information results in the transfer or parting with of the property or assets or any special knowledge or skill which would ripen into a form of property and that after such transfer, the transferor is deprived of using the asset. (Please see Moriarty v. Evans Medical Supplies Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 707 (HL)). In all other cases, where no capital asset or property is parted with and the transaction is merely a method of trading \n\nby which the recipient acquires the particular sum of money as profits and gains of that trade, the consideration received for the sale of technical know-how will be on revenue account.\n", "9. If the amount received by the foreign participant is a revenue receipt in his hands and the amount is received by him outside India the further questions that would arise are, whether the payment is :\n", "(i) for services rendered abroad, or\n \n\n", "\"Royalty, a payment reserved by the grantor of a patent, lease of a mine or similar right, and payable proportionately to the use made of the right of the grantee. It is usually a payment of money, but may be payment in kind, that is, of part of the produce of the exercise of the right.\n", "\"Royalty, a payment reserved by the grantor of a patent, lease of a mine or similar right, and payable proportionately to the use made of the right of the grantee. It is usually a payment of money, but may be payment in kind, that is, of part of the produce of the exercise of the right.\n", "Royalty also means a payment which is made to an author or composer by a publisher in respect of each copy of his work which is sold, or to an inventor in respect of each article sold under the patent,\n \n\nFees, perquisites allowed to officers in the administration of justice, as a recompense for their labour and trouble, ascertained either by Acts of Parliament, by rule or order of court, or by ancient usage, in modern \n\n\ntimes frequently commuted for a salary, e.g., by the Justices Clerks Act, 1877, Sections 2-4 (repealed).\n"]}, {"Title": "The Income Tax Officer, T.D.S. - Viii, ... vs Raj Television Network Ltd., ... on 30 October, 2001", "DocID": 139044, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["   Date of Payment\t\t Amount\n01.02.1996\t\tRs. 2,02,12,500 \n27.03.1966 \t\tRs. 1,02,54,000\n\nTotal ... \t\tRs. 3,04,66,500 \n \n\nThus, the total payment was made in a sum of Rs. 3,04,66, 500/=. According to the Revenue, while making this payment, Raj TV should have deducted tax under Section 195 of the I.T. Act but did not do so. The ITO., (TDS) issued Show Cause Notice for treating the assessee in default under Section. 201(1) of the I.T.Act. The ITO held that the amount paid by RAJ TV to RTV is an income that arose and accrued in India to RTV, England and that the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act will be attracted because of the reasons that RTV has rendered service in Indian Territory by beaming signals across the taxable territory in India which are utilised by the local channels. Further, there was a continuity of business connection between the assessee company and RTV which was effective from 15.11.95. Also, the foreign company has received the transponding hire charges only due to its business connection in India.\n", " (iva) \"The use or the right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment.\" \n"]}, {"Title": "Shriram Capital Ltd, Chennai vs Dcit, Corp Cir-6(1), Chennai on 18 February, 2022", "DocID": 176861207, "matching_columns": ["\"7.     We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.\nThe only issue in the present appeal relates to disallowance u/s14A of the\nAct. Admittedly, assessee made investments which yielded dividend income\nof Rs.61,44,03,001/- and investments were made in subsidiary companies\nfor strategic purpose. Admittedly, assessee itself had offered suo motu\ndisallowance of Rs.73,602/- u/s.14A of the Act. The provisions of Sub Section\n(2) of Section 14A of the Act provides that resort to provisions u/s.14A of\nthe Act can be made only if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the\nclaim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred to earn exempt\nincome. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to\nrecord a satisfaction as to correctness or otherwise of the claim of the\nassessee regarding expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. In the\npresent case, assessee suo motu offered disallowance of Rs.73,602/-. From\nthe perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that there is no findings by the\nAssessing Officer as to the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the\nassessee that only an expenditure of Rs.73,602/- was incurred. In this\nabsences of any findings by the Assessing Officer, resort to provisions of\nSection 14A of the Act cannot be made as ruled by Hon'ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd (supra) and the\nSLP against this judgment was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 259\nTaxman 83. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment\nLtd (supra) has upheld this principle by holding as under:-\n\n       \"41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read\n       with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying\n       the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record\n       satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu\n       disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those\n       cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the\n       Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that\n       eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect.\n       Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan\n       taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the\n       investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer''.\n\nRecently, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal to which one of us i.e. the\nAccountant Member is the author of the order, in the case of City Union Bank\nLtd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) 74 ITR Trib (644)\nChennai held as follows:-\n\n       \"As regards to other limb of the argument of the assessee that in the\n       absences of any finding by the Assessing Officer as to how the\n       contention of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred is\n       incorrect no disallowance should be made. We find from the\n       assessment order that the assessee bank itself has offered a sum of\n       \u00e2\u0082\u00b92,19,751/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. From the\n                                       7           I.T.A. Nos.3168, 3216, 3255 & 3217/Chny/18\n\n\n       perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the\n       Assessing Officer had not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how\n       the claim of the assessee is incorrect. In the similar facts, the Hon'ble\n       Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402\n       ITR 640 held that in the absence of the finding of the Assessing\n       Officer resort to provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the\n       Rules cannot be made. This decision was followed by the Co-\n       ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Karur Vysya Bank\n       (supra) cited by holding as under:-\n\n              \"Ground No. 8 challenges the addition of \u00e2\u0082\u00b93,88,882/- invoking\n              the provision of Section 14A of the Act. It is the contention of\n              the appellant that the appellant had not incurred any\n              expenditure to earn exempt income. The Assessing Officer\n              had not given any findings as to how the claim of the assessee-\n              bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt\n              income was incorrect. In the absence of this finding resort to\n              the provisions of rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules cannot be\n              made as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of\n              Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640.\n              Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is\n              allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in\n              favour of the assessee''.\n\n Similar view was taken up by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the\n       case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and\n       PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105\n       taxmann.com 274. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had firmly held\n       that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be\n       accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar\n       Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the\n       Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of dismissal of SLP in PCIT vs.\n       Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105\n       taxmann.com 274''.\n\nIn the light of the above decisions, admittedly, in the present case, the\nAssessing Officer had not recorded any findings as to the correctness or\notherwise of the claim of assessee company that only expenditure of\nRs.73,602/- was incurred to earn exempt income. Therefore, the Assessing\nOfficer was not justified in resort to provisions u/s.14A of the Act.\nAccordingly, no disallowance can be made u/s.14A of the Act.\n\n08.    It is unnecessary for us to deal with other arguments made by the\nassessee since we had held that no resort can be made to provisions of\nSection 14A of the Act.\n                                            8           I.T.A. Nos.3168, 3216, 3255 & 3217/Chny/18\n      09.   In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.\""], "matching_indents": []}, {"Title": "Sonata Information Technology Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 31 January, 2006", "DocID": 456079, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["1. Actuate Corporation, USA\n \n\n", "2. Borland Australia Ply Ltd.\n", "3. Business Objects.\n", " Defined generally, the word 'royalty' means a share of the product or profit reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property; the share of the production or profit it paid to the owner; a share of the product or proceeds therefrom reserved to the owner for permitting another to use the property; the share of the produce reserved to the owner for permitting another to exploit and use the property; a share of the profit, reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property; the amount reserved or the rental to be paid the original owner of the whole estate.\n", "An asset would be said to be exploited only when it is replicated or distributed or sold. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. , after considering many decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts had observed that-\n", "An agreement was entered into between Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation and the appellant on 1-7-2003. This agreement provided for the appellant to be appointed as its Non-Exclusive Distributor in India for the distribution of Microsoft Corporation product. The Distributor's rights to distribute product under the agreement extended only to the territory defined in the agreement.\n", "Clause 2 of the agreement provides for appointment, which reads as under:\n", " 2. Appointment. - Subject to the provisions of this Agreement MRS appoints the Distributor as its non-exclusive distributor of the Products in the Territory.\n", "4. Miscellaneous:\n", "(a) All Confidential Information and Confidential Materials are and shall remain the property of MRS. By disclosing information to Company, MRS does not grant any express or implied right to Company to or under Microsoft patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secret information.\n", "(b) If MRS or any MRS affiliate provides pre-release PC operating system software (\"Product\") as Confidential Information or Confidential Materials under this Agreement:\n", "Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines as under.-\n", "Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines as under.-\n", "Article 10\n \n\nComputer Programmes and Compilations of Data\n  \n\n", "1. Computer programmes, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).\n", "7. Material object which is the subject of copyright is different from copyright. - Copyright is different from the material object, which is the subject of the copyright. So, a transfer of the material object does not necessarily involve a transfer of the copyright. Where the plaintiffs sold certain electroblocks for the purpose of printing certain drawings, and the purchasers lent these blocks to the defendants in order that they, in turn, might print from them, it was held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to restrain the defendants from doing so, notwithstanding the permission of the purchasers. The sale of the books could not have had the effect of an assignment of copyright.\n", " In order for an assignment to be valid, it must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor. It has been held that sufficient writing might be provided by an invoice or receipt. The assignment should identify the work concerned with sufficient clarity so that it can be ascertained, though the courts have admitted oral ('parol') evidence to assist in the process of identification. No special form of words is required, so a transfer of 'all the partnership assets' will include a transfer of any copyright owned by the partnership. Assignment of copyright is a distinct legal transaction and is not effected by mere sale or transfer of the work itself. Thus, if a person sells an original painting or manuscript, this (of itself) only transfers the personal property right in the chattel: the copyright remains with its owner. If a vendor wishes to transfer the copyright as well as the personal property in the chattel, this should be done explicitly.\n", "6.9 Indian statutory law treats software as goods and levies sales tax, excise and custom duty on it as goods as the extract below indicates:\n"]}, {"Title": "Lg Electronics India Pvt Ltd vs Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others on 13 July, 2012", "DocID": 48055807, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["             a) That this court has no territorial jurisdiction to\n             entertain and try the present proceedings as no part of\n             cause of action qua the said complaint has arisen within\n             the jurisdiction of this court. The defendant no. 1 is\n             carrying on business in Mumbai and the defendant no. 2\n             is   the   commissioner    of   customs       (Import)   Special\n             Investigation and is also having office in Mumbai. The\n             chief commissioner of customs is added as defendant in\n             order to create jurisdiction of this court.\n", "       (a) \"goods infringing intellectual property rights\" means any\n       goods which are made, reproduced, put into circulation or\n       otherwise used in breach of the intellectual property laws in\n       India or outside India and without the consent of the right\n       holder or a person duly authorized to do so by the right\n       holder;\n", "       (b) \"intellectual property\" means a copyright as defined in\n       the Copyright Act, 1957, trade mark as defined in the Trade\n\nCS (OS) No.2982/2011                                        Page 29 of 80\nMarks Act,1999, patent as defined in the Patents Act, 1970,\n       design as defined in the Designs Act, 2000 and geographical\n       indications as defined in the Geographical Indications of\n       Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;\n", "             \"4. It is pertinent to mention that while the mandatory\n             obligations under Articles 51 to 60 of the TRIPS dealing\n             with border measures are restricted to Copyright and\n             Trade Marks infringement only, the said Rules deal with\n\nCS (OS) No.2982/2011                                       Page 35 of 80\n              Patents, Designs and Geographical Indications violations\n             as well, in conformity with the practice prevailing in\n             some other countries, notably EU countries. While it is\n             not difficult for Customs officers to determine\n             Copyright and Trade Marks infringements at the\n             border based on available data/inputs, it may not\n             be so in the case of the other three violations,\n             unless the offences have already been established\n             by a judicial pronouncement in India and the\n             Customs is called upon or required to merely\n             implement such order. In other words, extreme\n             caution needs to be exercised at the time of\n             determination of infringement of these three\n             intellectual property rights.\"\n", "ARTICLE 51: Suspension of Release by Custom Authorities\nMembers shall, in conformity with the provisions set out below,\nadopt procedures to enable aright holder, who has valid grounds\nfor suspecting that the importation of counterfeit trademark or\npirated copyright goods may take place, to lodge an application in\nwriting with competent authorities, administrative or judicial, for\nthe suspension by the customs authorities of the release into free\ncirculation of such goods. Members may enable such an application\nto be made in respect of goods which involve other infringements\nof intellectual property rights, provided that the requirements of\nthis Section are met. Members may also provide for corresponding\nprocedures concerning the suspension by the customs authorities\nof the release of infringing goods destined for exportation from\ntheir territories.\n", "   a) Article 51 provides for the different kind of treatment relating\n       to border measures when it comes to trade mark, copyright\n       infringement on the one hand vis-a-vis the infringement of\n       the other forms of intellectual property rights. The said\n       article 51 uses the expression \"shall\" making it obligatory\n       upon the member states to provide for the procedure for the\n       suspension of the goods on the basis of the suspicion of the\n       right holder relating to the infringement of the trade mark or\n       copyright pirated goods. Curiously, the same very article\n       uses the expression \"may\" which making it optional for the\n       member countries to provide such mechanism for other\n       forms of intellectual properties with the proviso that the\n       conditions set out in this chapter are met with.\n", " Article 1\n", "       - that the right-holder inform the customs authorities in\n\nCS (OS) No.2982/2011                                       Page 52 of 80\n        writing within 10 working days, or three working days in\n       the case of perishable goods, of receipt of the\n       notification provided for in Article 9, that the goods\n       concerned by the procedure infringe an intellectual\n       property right referred to in Article 2(1) and provide\n       those authorities with the written agreement of the\n       declarant, the holder or the owner of the goods to\n       abandon the goods for destruction. With the agreement\n       of the customs authorities, this information may be\n       provided directly to customs by the declarant, the\n       holder or the owner of the goods. This agreement shall\n       be presumed to be accepted when the declarant, the\n       holder or the owner of the goods has not specifically\n       opposed destruction within the prescribed period. This\n       period may be extended by a further ten working days\n       where circumstances warrant it;\n", " Article 1\n             Nature and Scope of Obligations\n\n", " Article 1\n             Nature and Scope of Obligations\n\n"]}, {"Title": "Asia Publishing House vs John Wiley And Sons, Inc. on 18 August, 1967", "DocID": 1937130, "matching_columns": [], "matching_indents": ["Question-.-(i) Whether Wileys were under the said agreement dated 1st October 1956 and in law entitled to give Asia the notice dated 1st March 1963.\n", "Question-.-(i) Whether Wileys were under the said agreement dated 1st October 1956 and in law entitled to give Asia the notice dated 1st March 1963.\n", "Answer:-Yes.\n", "Question-.-(i) Whether Wileys were under the said agreement dated 1st October 1956 and in law entitled to give Asia the notice dated 1st March 1963.\n", "Answer:-Yes.\n", "Question:-(ii) Whether the said Notice was illegal and/or in breach of the Agreement and if so, to what extent.\n", "(1) Is there an error made by the arbitrator in the construction of any of the terms of the reprint agreement? If so, is the error apparent on the face of the award. If there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award, was that question specifically referred as such for decision by the arbitrator, or was it merely an error of law made by the arbitrator in the course of deciding any question in dispute but not specifically referred?\n", "(1) Is there an error made by the arbitrator in the construction of any of the terms of the reprint agreement? If so, is the error apparent on the face of the award. If there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award, was that question specifically referred as such for decision by the arbitrator, or was it merely an error of law made by the arbitrator in the course of deciding any question in dispute but not specifically referred?\n", "(2) Is the award liable to be set aside on the ground that there is such an error apparent on the face of the award as would deprive the arbitrator of jurisdiction to so decide?\n", "Memorandum of Agreement made this first day of October, 1956, Between John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 440 Fourth Avenue, New York 16, New York, U.S.A. (hereinafter called the Proprietors) of the one part and Asia Publishing House, Contractor Building, Nicol Road, Ballard Estate, Bombay 1, India, (hereinafter called the Publishers) of the other part whereby it is mutually agreed as follows representing the Proprietors' publications (hereinafter called the said works).\n", "1. The Proprietors hereby grant to the Publishers the sole and exclusive license to print and publish the said works in the English language throughout the Republic of India subject to the terms and conditions following.\n", "2. The Publishers shall inform the Proprietors the titles of the books they are interested in publishing in the Publishers' territory. No printing work shall be carried out by the Publishers until they obtain permission in writing from the Proprietors to do so.\n", " ...The agreement there, although different in certain terms from the present agreement, has certain features very ' much in common. In that case (as in the present) the licensee was to make use of the designs of the licensor, and in both cases, it appears to me, the reputation of the licensor might be affected by the goods manufactured by the licensee. In the case of that agreement there was an express provision for determination in certain specified events, namely, in the event of the commission or remuneration under the agreement not reaching a certain specified sum; and it was because of that express- provision in the agreement that Jenkins J. took the view that it was not determinable on notice.\n", " ...The agreement there, although different in certain terms from the present agreement, has certain features very ' much in common. In that case (as in the present) the licensee was to make use of the designs of the licensor, and in both cases, it appears to me, the reputation of the licensor might be affected by the goods manufactured by the licensee. In the case of that agreement there was an express provision for determination in certain specified events, namely, in the event of the commission or remuneration under the agreement not reaching a certain specified sum; and it was because of that express- provision in the agreement that Jenkins J. took the view that it was not determinable on notice.\n", "Mr. Sen urged that in the present agreement also there is an express provision for determination in certain specified events and therefore in view of that express provision it should be held that the present agreement was not determinable on notice.\n", " ...The first thing that one observes is that it is a mere licence, or the operative part of that agreement is a mere licence, to the Canadian company to manufacture, sell and exploit; and accordingly, on the principles which I have adopted, prima facie that licence is terminable. It does not impose any obligation upon the Canadian company to manufacture, sell or exploit any of the Martin-Baker products at all, though it does bar Martin-Baker from entering into any agreement with another party on the American continent to manufacture, sell or exploit if the Canadian company do nothing at all. That alone appears to me to be a consideration which points quite plainly to the view that Martin-Baker cannot have intended that they were to have their hands entirely tied by what may be wholly passive action by the Canadian company. That is one element in this agreement which points strongly in my view to determinability.\n", " ...The first thing that one observes is that it is a mere licence, or the operative part of that agreement is a mere licence, to the Canadian company to manufacture, sell and exploit; and accordingly, on the principles which I have adopted, prima facie that licence is terminable. It does not impose any obligation upon the Canadian company to manufacture, sell or exploit any of the Martin-Baker products at all, though it does bar Martin-Baker from entering into any agreement with another party on the American continent to manufacture, sell or exploit if the Canadian company do nothing at all. That alone appears to me to be a consideration which points quite plainly to the view that Martin-Baker cannot have intended that they were to have their hands entirely tied by what may be wholly passive action by the Canadian company. That is one element in this agreement which points strongly in my view to determinability.\n", " Furthermore, I think it is plain throughout this agreement that there are terms which involve the highest degree of mutual confidence and trust between the two contracting parties, and therefore that it is an agreement which even on the most limited application of Lord Selborne's doctrine would not be permanent, but would be terminable.\n", " ...A licence in the strict sense is, as I said during the argument, nothing but a permission which would carry with it immunity from proceedings to those who act upon the permission. It is really a dispensation and nothing more than a dispensation.\n", " ...A licence in the strict sense is, as I said during the argument, nothing but a permission which would carry with it immunity from proceedings to those who act upon the permission. It is really a dispensation and nothing more than a dispensation.\n", "In the case of Heap v. Hartley (1880) 42 Ch. D. 461, Cotton L.J. referring to the expression \"licence\" and what that term carried, said this (p. 468) :\n", " ...A licence in the strict sense is, as I said during the argument, nothing but a permission which would carry with it immunity from proceedings to those who act upon the permission. It is really a dispensation and nothing more than a dispensation.\n", "In the case of Heap v. Hartley (1880) 42 Ch. D. 461, Cotton L.J. referring to the expression \"licence\" and what that term carried, said this (p. 468) :\n", " ...That is pointedly put in the judgment of Lord Hatherley, then Vice-Chancellor, in this way:-\n", " ...If tie play be not produced in London by the said George Edwardes within three months from this date all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensors.\n", " ...If tie play be not produced in London by the said George Edwardes within three months from this date all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensors.\n", "It was this clause which it was said compares with clause 11 of the agreement in the present case wherein it is provided that should the publishers be declared bankrupt or should they violate any of the terms of the agreement and not rectify such violations within six months of having received written notice from the proprietors to do so, \"then all rights to publish or sell the said works in the English language shall revert to the proprietors...\" In that case that Clause (clause 5) weighed heavily in favour of it being held that there was an assignment of the copyright. After referring to clause 1 Lord Hailsham held (p. 15&):\n", " ...If tie play be not produced in London by the said George Edwardes within three months from this date all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensors.\n", "It was this clause which it was said compares with clause 11 of the agreement in the present case wherein it is provided that should the publishers be declared bankrupt or should they violate any of the terms of the agreement and not rectify such violations within six months of having received written notice from the proprietors to do so, \"then all rights to publish or sell the said works in the English language shall revert to the proprietors...\" In that case that Clause (clause 5) weighed heavily in favour of it being held that there was an assignment of the copyright. After referring to clause 1 Lord Hailsham held (p. 15&):\n", " .. .That, in my view, plainly operates as an assignment to Mr. George Edwardes of the sole and exclusive right of representation within the area named in the clause, and I think that that view of the clause is strengthened, not only by the expression in clause 2, which stipulates that the copyright in the music shall remain the property of M. Messager, but also by the language of clause 5, which provides that in the event of non-production within three months 'all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensers.' That seems to me inept language in which to describe the mere cessation of a licence, and is much more apt to describe the reversion to the licensors of rights which had been assigned by clause I.\n \n\n", " ...In my opinion then by virtue of the provisions of the agreement and Section 1 of the Act, the plaintiffs if they exercise their option in respect of 'Captivity' will have an interest in the copyright. Until they exercise their option they will not be assignees of the copyright wholly or partially, or grantees of an interest in the copyright by licence under Section 5, Sub-section 2; for it is only the exercise of their option that converts then option to become proprietors or owners of a part of the copyright into equitable ownership of part of the copyright or an interest in the copyright. But they have in the meantime an option to become entitled to an interest in the copyright. Their interest has in the course of the case been called an inchoate interest, it is a right in the plaintiffs to acquire an interest in the copyright by signifying their desire to do so, and is an interest in the copyright in the same way as an option to purchase a piece of land or to acquire certain shares is an interest in tile land or shares.\n", " It seems to me, therefore, that, on the cases, there is none which compels us to hold that a mere referencs to the contract in the award entitles us to look at the contract. It may be that in particular cases a specific reference to a particular clause of a contract may incorporate the contract, or that clause of it, in the award. I think that we are driven back to first principles in this matter, namely, that an award can only be set aside for error which is on its face. It is true that an award can incorporate another document so as to entitle one to read that document as part of the award and, by reading them together, find an error on the face of the award. But the question whether a contract, or a clause in a contract, is incorporated in the award is a question of construction of the award. It seems to me that the test is put as conveniently as it can be in the words of Denning L.J., which I have already cited from Blaiber & Co., Ltd. v. Leopold Newborne [London], Ltd. (1953) 2 Lloyd's Rep. at p. 429 ' As I read the cases, if the arbitrator says: \"On the wording of this clause I hold' sj and so, then that clause is impliedly incorporated into the award because he invites the reading of it.\n", " Any and every dispute difference or question which shall at any time arise between the parties hereto touching the construction meaning or effect of these presents or of any clause or thing herein contained or the rights or liabilities of the parties he-rounder or otherwise howsoever relating to the premises shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or failing agreement to be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being and this shall be deemed a submission....\n", "The question raised upon these facts was whether there was a reference to the arbitrator of any question of law as such or merely a general reference to arbitration. Viscount Cave L.C. held that there was in that case a reference to the arbitrator of the question which had arisen on the construction of the deed of cancellation. The arbitration clause in the deed applied in terms to every dispute, difference or question which might arise between the parties touching the \"construction, meaning', or effect\" of the deed and the appointment of the arbitrator showed that differences had arisen as to construction, and the arbitrator was appointed to determine those differences. Therefore Viscount Cave L.C. concluded \"The reference, therefore, was a reference as to construction\", and when there was such a reference the principle applicable \\vas as follows (p. 409):\n", " Any and every dispute difference or question which shall at any time arise between the parties hereto touching the construction meaning or effect of these presents or of any clause or thing herein contained or the rights or liabilities of the parties he-rounder or otherwise howsoever relating to the premises shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or failing agreement to be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being and this shall be deemed a submission....\n", "The question raised upon these facts was whether there was a reference to the arbitrator of any question of law as such or merely a general reference to arbitration. Viscount Cave L.C. held that there was in that case a reference to the arbitrator of the question which had arisen on the construction of the deed of cancellation. The arbitration clause in the deed applied in terms to every dispute, difference or question which might arise between the parties touching the \"construction, meaning', or effect\" of the deed and the appointment of the arbitrator showed that differences had arisen as to construction, and the arbitrator was appointed to determine those differences. Therefore Viscount Cave L.C. concluded \"The reference, therefore, was a reference as to construction\", and when there was such a reference the principle applicable \\vas as follows (p. 409):\n", " If this be so, I think it follows that, unless it appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator has proceeded on principles which were wrong in law, his conclusions as to the construction of the deed must be accepted. No doubt an award may be set aside for an error of law appearing on the face of it; and no doubt a question of construction is (generally speaking) a question of law. But where a question of construction is the very thing referred for arbitration, then the decision of the arbitrator upon that point cannot be set aside by the Court only because the Court would itself have come to a different conclusion. If it appears by the award that the arbitrator has proceeded illegally-for instance, that he has decided on evidence which in law was not admissible or on principles of construction which the law does not countenance, then there is error in law which may be ground for setting aside the award; but the mere dissent of the Court from arbitrator's conclusion on construction is not enough for that purpose.\n", " By clause 2 of the agreement Asia were to obtain the permission of Wiley before publishing any of the said books, but apart from the question whether such permission can be unreasonably withheld, the sole and exclusive rights to print, publish and sell the said books in India etc. remained in Asia. In other words Wiley are not entitled to withhold permission to Asia and then grant permission to another in the territories of which Asia is the sole and exclusive licensee for the publication of the said books.\n", "The reply to this pleading before the arbitrator is to be found in the reply on behalf of John Wiley & Sons dated October 14, 1964. In para. 2 Wileys said:\n", " With reference to para 2 of Asia's Statement of Claim, the construction sought to be put by Asia on Clause 2 of the Agreement is incorrect and Unsustainable, Asia acquired no license to print and publish any of the titles of Wileys except those in respect of which Wileys gave their consent in writing. Under the Agreement Wileys have the right to decide in respect of which titles they would give permission to Asia to print and publish them. Wileys are not bound to give any reasons for not giving their consent.\n"]}]

Matching_rows_Format.txt

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+[{'Title': 'Asstt. Cit vs Hewlett Packard Ltd. on 14 August, 2001', 'DocID': 34884, 'matching_columns': ['"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical information to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder (subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in article 3 hereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo.\n\n(i) In respect of the Technology conveyed, Technical Information and Technical assistance to be provided under article 3.1 by way of lump sum in the net sum of US $ 1.1 million free of all Indian taxes.\n\n(ii) In respect of the royalty payable for the Licensed Products manufactured by HCL in India, a fixed royalty of eight hundred US dollars (US $  800) shall be paid on each unit of the licensed product manufactured by HCL in India and sold or leased.\n\n(iii) In respect of licensing of Apollo Software Programs under article 9 thereof, the applicable license fees for each Apollo Software Program reproduced and sublicensed to India end users together with the licensed product, under the then current Apollo Software Program Price List under Ext. 4 of the Agreement which be as per Apollo, is prevailing distributor price list. It is agreed that the price for the operating system, AEGIS and DOMAIN/IX, will during the term of this agreement, not exceed seven hundred US dollars (US $ 700) as stated in Ext. 4.\n\n(iv) In respect of the documentation under article hereof, the applicable license fees for each copy of the documentation reproduced under the List of Documentation under Ext. 6, will be five US Dollars (US $ 5) per copy."', '"4.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the technology and any other information which Apollo consider proprietary to itself and its license and which will be conveyed and disclose by Apollo to HCL in carrying out the provisions of this agreement is and shall remain confidential during the terms of this agreement and after the expiration or termination hereof for any reason whatsoever, until such time as same shall enter the public domain or otherwise become generally known without a material breach of this agreement by HCL.\n\n4.2. HCL agrees that they shall maintain the confidentiality of the technology and said other information conveyed and disclosed by Apollo hereunder and shall not without the prior written consent of Apollo disclose same or allow same to be disclosed to anyone, except to their management and employees and to any of HCL\'s sub-licensee(s) sub-contractor(s), agents or suppliers and then only to the extent required for the proper and authorised use of the technology hereunder, unless the technology and said other information;\n\n(a) are contained at the time of disclosure by Apollo hereunder or thereafter in a patent or patent application or other printed publication made by a third party without a breach of this agreement by HCL; or\n \n\n(b) are acquired by HCL from a third party lawfully in possession of same and not subject to any contractual or fiduciary obligation to Apollo to maintain the secrecy of same. HCL agree that, prior to any disclosure of the technology and said other information, they shall enter into confidentiality agreement, containing in substance the provisions of this article 4, with their management and employees and with any of the HCL is sub-licensee(s) sub-contractor(s), agents, or suppliers to whom such disclosure is to be made."', '"5.9 HCL shall use its best efforts to maintain a standard of quality and workmanship in its manufacture of the licensed products equal to that of Apollo and shall manufacture the licensed products out of materials supplied by parties to be mutually agreed between HCL and Apollo. HCL shall permit representatives of Apollo, upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, to inspect the manufacturing facilities of HCL used for the manufacture of the licensed products. In particular, Apollo\'s representative shall be permitted to inspect and monitor the quality control procedures to be used by HCL, as well as to inspect samples of the licensed products and the compliance by HCL, with the quality standards for the licensed products contained in the technology."', '"8.4 HCL agrees to use its best efforts to ensure that each end user so sublicensed continues to comply with the terms of the sub-license. HCL shall maintain records specifically identifying each, Software, Program stocked by HCL and provided to end-users customers of HCL under this procedure, the quantities of such Software Program stocked and provided and the identity of the end-user customer to which they are provided; such records shall be made available to Apollo during regular business upon reasonable notice for purposes of enforcement of this agreement."', '"8.5 Apollo may appoint independent third parties in India to audit HCL\'s records on software licenses granted to end-users in India 15 days after the end of each calendar quarter to determine exact number of sub-license granted to end-users.\n\nApollo shall charge HCL applicable license fees for sub-license and update sublicensed to India end-user customers under Apollo\'s Software Program Price List. HCL shall make payment for total applicable license fees due to Apollo immediately on receiving approval from the Reserve Bank of India for remittance of license fees payable. HCL shall remit payment by telegraphic transfer directly to Apollo\'s designated bank account in West Germany as specified by Apollo. Remittance to Apollo shall be in US dollars at the exchange rate prevailing at the date of remittance. It shall be the sole responsibility of HCL to obtain all necessary approvals to make payment to Apollo. Full payment of applicable license fees shall be made to Apollo by HCL not later than forty-five days after the end of the calendar quarter. Any delay in payment beyond the 45 days period shall entitle Apollo to charge HCL daily interest at the current prime interest rate fixed by the Bank of India."', '"12.1 HCL shall prepare the factory site designated for manufacture of the licensed protect in consultation with Apollo.\n\n12.2 In order to assist HCL in preparing the production of licensed products Apollo may if requested provide assistance including supply of the following date and information. These data shall be in accordance with accepted international customary standard examples as follows:\n\n(a) Plan for assembly line.\n\n(b) Plan for manpower arrangement.\n\n(c) Plan for equipment layout.\n\n(d) Plan for infrastructure e.g. water supply, electricity, air-conditioning, transportation and communication.\n\n(e) Plan for installation and operation of equipments for manufacture.\n\n(f) Plan for production management.\n\n(g) Plan for test and repair of licensed products.\n\nHCL shall submit a production schedule to Apollo within 30 days after parties execute this agreement.\n\nArticle 14 dealing with duration and termination reads as :\n\n"14.1 Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall have an initial term of 5 years commencing on the effective date hereof. In the event that this agreement is not terminated earlier than said full initial term, then HCL may thereafter continue to manufacture, use and sell the licensed products under the rights granted herein without the obligation of paying any additional consideration to Apollo, including the right to manufacture, use and sell under any patents included in the technology covering the licensed products, provided that HCL shall make no claims against Apollo with respect to the licensed products."', '"14. In our view the principles of Vienna Conversion is guidelines for the countries who are party to this convention. It is also empathic to explain that when an agreement is entered between two countries that should be fulfillled by following its terms and conditions. In our considered view Indian and Italian Governments entered into \'an agreement for avoiding the double taxation in both the countries. Therefore, provisions of section 90 are also overriding on provisions to section 9(1)(vi)."'], 'matching_indents': ['"(ii) Lump sum know how fee : US Dollar 11 lakhs of taxes with tax liability to be borne by the Indian Company."\n', '"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical information to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder (subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in article 3 hereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo.\n', '"6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical information to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder (subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in article 3 hereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo.\n', '"4.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the technology and any other information which Apollo consider proprietary to itself and its license and which will be conveyed and disclose by Apollo to HCL in carrying out the provisions of this agreement is and shall remain confidential during the terms of this agreement and after the expiration or termination hereof for any reason whatsoever, until such time as same shall enter the public domain or otherwise become generally known without a material breach of this agreement by HCL.\n', '"5.9 HCL shall use its best efforts to maintain a standard of quality and workmanship in its manufacture of the licensed products equal to that of Apollo and shall manufacture the licensed products out of materials supplied by parties to be mutually agreed between HCL and Apollo. HCL shall permit representatives of Apollo, upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, to inspect the manufacturing facilities of HCL used for the manufacture of the licensed products. In particular, Apollo\'s representative shall be permitted to inspect and monitor the quality control procedures to be used by HCL, as well as to inspect samples of the licensed products and the compliance by HCL, with the quality standards for the licensed products contained in the technology."\n', '"14.1 Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall have an initial term of 5 years commencing on the effective date hereof. In the event that this agreement is not terminated earlier than said full initial term, then HCL may thereafter continue to manufacture, use and sell the licensed products under the rights granted herein without the obligation of paying any additional consideration to Apollo, including the right to manufacture, use and sell under any patents included in the technology covering the licensed products, provided that HCL shall make no claims against Apollo with respect to the licensed products."\n', 'Registered Post\n \n\nNo. FC : 71(87)-Comp./SCS.\n', 'Government of India\n \n\nMinistry of Industry\n \n\nDepartment of Industrial Development\n \n\nSecretariat for Industrial Approvals\n \n\nSpecial cases section\n \n\nNew Delhi, the 20-11-1991\n \n\nM/s HCL Ltd.,\n \n\n608, Siddharth,\n \n\n96, Nehru Place,\n \n\nNew Delhi-110 019.\n', 'Subject : Application from M/s. HCL Ltd., for foreign collaboration with M/s Apollo Computer Inc. USA for the manufacture of microprocessor based CAD/GAM work section.\n', '"Subject to written approval of the appropriate government agencies and departments of the United States Export Licensing Authority and an conditions imposed on such approval and compliance therewith, Apollo hereby convey and grants to HCL exclusive right to manufacture, maintain, use and sell the licensed product in India in accordance with pursuant to and under the Technology. Said technology relating to the manufacture of the licensed products in India which is owned by Apollo as of the effective date of this agreement.\n', '"Apollo shall deliver the tangible technical information constituting the technology, in accordance with Ext. 3 be prepaid air mail or air freight C.I.F. or by such other means which are reasonable and obtain from HCL acknowledgement of such delivery to HCL\'s registered office in India or to such other location in India which HCL will designate. Apollo shall provide two copies of said technical information in a form capable of being copies in the English language. HCL may, at their own expense, translate same into the Indian language, subject to the confidentiality provisions of article 4 hereof. Apollo shall use all practical means to ensure that all the technical information under the technology provided to HCL is accurate, comprehensive and up todate and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, comprehensive and up todate and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, Apollo shall at its own cost rectify the inaccuracy without delay. Apollo will not be liable for any loss or damage suffered by HCL in respect of such inaccuracies.\n', '"Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other articles of this agreement, then the provisions of those articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this article."\n', '"Article, VIII-A\n \n\n(1) Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other state.\n', '(2) However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that state. But insofar as the fees for technical services are concerned, the tax so charged shall not exceed 20 per cent of the gross amount of such fees.\n', '(3) The term "royalties" as used in this article means payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience.\n', '"The recitals in the agreement as also the provisions contained in clause (6) thereof showed that the obligation undertaken by the assessed did not end merely with the handing over of the secret processes, but also extended to helping the Indian company in exploiting these processes property, efficiently and economically. The handing over of the know-how or secret processes was intimately connected and concerned with the obligation which was undertaken by the assessed in clause (6). Therefore, it was properly held that part of the technical fees, accrued in India."\n', '"Held, that, firstly, the agreement between the assessed and the foreign company was for a period of ten years only. Secondly, it was in respect of certain secret or patent formulations owned or controlled by the foreign company. The payment, though called \'Research contribution\' in the agreement, was nothing but the consideration correlated to the extent of the exploitation of the secret formulations and patent rights and various other rights belonging to the foreign company by the assessed in India and that it was for the exclusive right to manufacture the products that the payment was made and it was nothing else but \'royalty\' as known to law and to the international commercial world in the context of such agreements. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 48,698 made by the assessed to the foreign company during the relevant period was royalty payment and was liable to deduction of tax at other lower rate of 50 per cent as prescribed in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971."\n']}, {'Title': 'Vodafone India Services P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 10 December, 2014', 'DocID': 13060393, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': [" 209. The judgment of the Supreme Court would undoubtedly be the\n        assessee's main plank and supports its case to a considerable extent,\n        especially as it is the very agreements that fall for consideration even in\n        the proceedings relating to the assessee's assessment. Mr. Salve rightly\n        contended that the Supreme Court had analyzed the Framework\n        Agreements and held that the call options are contractual rights; that\n        they vested and continue to vest in the assessee and that they had not been\n        transferred or assigned by the assessee. We proceed, as indeed we must,\n        that before the ITAT, a very heavy burden would rest upon the Revenue\n        even regarding the assessee's assessment in view of the judgment in\n        Vodafone's case. Every Court, Tribunal, authority or person is bound to\n        give the observations of the Supreme Court, including in respect of the\n        Framework Agreements, their full effect. The suggestion that they are\n        casual observations is rejected. A view to the contrary would tantamount\n        to judicial indiscipline. This is not just our prima facie view. Needless to\n\n", 'Framework agreement 2006                                   Framework agreement 2007.\n', '4.5 below and at a fair market value determined in\naccordance with Clause 4.6 below.                           (i) at any time, and from time to time,\n                                                            and to the extent GSPL or any of its\nGoldspot may exercise the Put Option at any time after:     Affiliates or any Person to which the Call\n                                                            Option is assigned pursuant to Clause\n', '(a) GSPL or its nominee issues the Subscription Notice      4.10(a) becomes eligible under all\nfor subscribing to such number of Subscription Shares       applicable Indian laws or Regulations to\nwhich would result in GSPL or its nomin:.e holding          hold such Put Shares. For the avoidance\nmore than 50% of the issued share capital of Centrino;      of doubt, in the event that the Sectoral\nor                                                          Cap is increased to permit an increased\n                                                            level of foreign ownership of HEL, AG\n', '        2.(47) "transfer", in relation to a capital asset, includes,-\n', '49 | P a g e\n                                                 Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '49 | P a g e\n                                                 Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '49 | P a g e\n                                                 Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '                   Hutchison Essar Limited (now Vodafone India Ltd.)\n\n50 | P a g e\n                                                   Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '        "ThisShareholder\'s Agreement (this "Agreement") is entered into on 5 July 2007,\n        among:\n', '        (1) Nadal Trading Company Private Limited (formerly known as Cerntino Trading\n        Company Private\' limited). a company incorporated under the Companies Ad , 956, and\n        having its registered office at Meher Chambers, 4" and 5th Floors. RK Marg, Ballard\n        Estate. Mumbai 400 038 (herein after referred to as "Nadal") of the FIRST PART;\n', '        (2) ND Callus Info Services Private Limited, a company incorporated under the\n        Companies Act 1956 and having its registered office at 15. Aurangzebe Road, New Delhi\n        110011 (hereinafter referred to as. "NDC\'\') of the SECOND PART;\n', '        Meaning of international transaction.\n', '               "WHEREAS:\n', '               (A)   CGP is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the\n                     Vendor, CGP owns, directly or indirectly, companies\n                     which control the Company Interests.\n', '               (B)   The Vendor has agreed to produce the sale of, and the\n                     Purchaser has agreed to purchase, the entire issued\n                     share capital of CGP on the terms and conditions set out\n                     in this agreement. The Vendor has further agreed to\n                     procure the assignment of, and the Purchaser has\n                     agreed to accept an assignment of, the Loans on the\n                     terms and conditions set out in this Agreement and the\n                     Loan Assignments.\n', '95 | P a g e\n                                              Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '95 | P a g e\n                                              Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '(a)     The Call Option Provides an unconditional right to VISPL to buy the\nunderlying shares, whereas the Put Option provides a right in favour of\nAS/AG to require VISPL to purchase the underlying shares.\n', '(b)     While providing two separate rights it has been ensured under the\n2007 Framework Agreements that the rights of AS/AG and VISPL are\n99 | P a g e\n                                        Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '      "158. SHA also provides for matters such as restriction of transfer of\n      shares i.e. Right of First Refusal (ROFR). Right of First Offer (ROFO). Drag-Along\n      Rights (DARs) and Tag-Along Rights (TARs). Pre-emption Rights. Call option. Put\n      option. Subscription option etc. SHA in a characteristic Joint Venture Enterprise\n      may regulate its affairs on the basis of various provisions enumerated above,\n      because Joint Venture enterprise may deal with matters regulating the ownership\n      and voting rights of shares in the company, control and manage the affairs of the\n      company, and also may make provisions for resolution of disputes between the\n      shareholders. Many of the above mentioned provisions find a place in SHAs, FWAs,\n      Term Sheet Agreement etc. in the present case, hence, we may refer to some of\n      those provisions.\n', '         (i)     Oswal Fats And Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner\n                 Administration) (2010) 4 SCC 728.\n', "The assessee is an Indian Company which was incorporated on 16 March,\n1999 under the Companies Act, 1956, in the name of 3 Global Services\nPrivate Limited ('3GSPL'). 3GSPL was part of Hutchison Whampoa Limited\n('HWL') Group. It became part of Vodafone International Holdings B.V.\n\n\n\n\n115 | P a g e\n                                        Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n", '        (a)Terminate the SPA; or\n', '        (a)Terminate the SPA; or\n', '        (b)     Complete the SPA to the extent practicable given the defaults\n            which have occurred; or\n\n\n123 | P a g e\n                                         Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '        (a)Terminate the SPA; or\n', '        (b)     Complete the SPA to the extent practicable given the defaults\n            which have occurred; or\n\n\n123 | P a g e\n                                         Vodafone India Services Private Ltd.\n', '        "GSPL transfer agreement means the business transfer agreement to\n        be entered into between GSPL and an affiliate of HWL relating to\n        call centre disposal substantially in the form attached to the\n        disclosure letter"\n']}, {'Title': 'Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hewlett Packard Ltd. on 14 August, 2001', 'DocID': 1282775, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['  "(ii) Lump sum know how fee : US Dollar 11 lakhs of taxes) with tax liability to be borne by the Indian Company." \n', ' "6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical\ninformation to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder\n(subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in Article 3\nhereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo. \n', ' "6.1 In consideration of the rights granted and the technology, technical\ninformation to be conveyed and technical assistance to be provided hereunder\n(subject to the payment of additional consideration expressly set forth in Article 3\nhereof) HCL shall pay to Apollo. \n', '  "4.1 It is understood and agreed by the parties that the technology and any other information which Apollo consider proprietary to itself and its licence and which will be conveyed and disclose by Apollo to HCL in carrying out the provisions of this agreement is and shall remain confidential during the terms of this agreement and after the expiration or termination hereof for any reason whatsoever, until such time as same shall enter the public domain or otherwise become generally known without a material breach of this agreement by HCL. \n', '  "5.9 HCL shall use its best efforts to maintain a standard of quality and workmanship in its manufacture of the licensed products equal to that of Apollo and shall manufacture the licensed products out of materials supplied by parties to be mutually agreed between HCL and Apollo. HCL shall permit representatives of Apollo, upon reasonable advance notice and during normal business hours, to inspect the manufacturing facilities of HCL used for the manufacture of the licensed products. In particular, Apollo\'s representative shall be permitted to inspect and monitor the quality control procedures to be used by HCL, as well as to inspect samples of the licensed products and the compliance by HCL, with the quality standards for the licensed products contained in the technology." \n', '  "14.1 Unless earlier terminated, this agreement shall have an initial term of 5 years commencing on the effective date hereof. In the event that this agreement is not terminated earlier than said full initial term, then HCL may thereafter continue to manufacture, use and sell the licensed products under the rights granted herein without the obligation of paying any additional consideration to Apollo, including the right to manufacture, use and sell under any patents included in the technology covering the licensed products, provided that HCL shall make no claims against Apollo with respect to the licensed products."  \n', 'REGISTERED POST  \n \n\n No. FC : 71(87)-Comp./SCS.  \n', ' Government of India  \n \n\n Ministry of Industry  \n \n\n Department of Industrial Development  \n \n\n Secretariat for Industrial Approvals  \n \n\n Special cases section  \n \n\n New Delhi, the 20th Nov., 1991  \n \n\n M/s HCL Ltd., \n \n\n 608, Siddharth, \n \n\n 96, Nehru Place,\t \n \n\n New Delhi- 110019. \n', ' Subject : Application from M/s HCL Ltd., for foreign collaboration with M/s\nApollo Computer Inc.  USA for the manufacture of microprocessor based\nCAD/GAM work section. \n', '  "Subject to written approval of the appropriate Government agencies and departments of the United States Export Licensing Authority and all conditions imposed on such approval and compliance therewith, Apollo hereby convey and grants to HCL exclusive right to manufacture, maintain, use and sell the licensed product in India in accordance with pursuant to and under the Technology. Said technology relating to the manufacture of the licensed products in India which is owned by Apollo as of the effective date of this agreement. \n', ' "Apollo shall deliver the tangible technical information constituting the technology, in accordance with Ext. 3 be prepaid air mail or air freight C.I.F. or\nby such other means which are reasonable and obtain from HCL acknowledgement of such delivery to HCL\'s registered office in India or to such other location in India which HCL will designate. Apollo shall provide two copies of said technical information in a form capable of being copies in the English language. HCL may, at their own expense, translate same into the Indian language, subject to the confidentiality provisions of Article 4 hereof, Apollo shall use all practical means to ensure that all the technical information under the technology provided to HCL is accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, comprehensive and up-to-date and in the event that any of the technical information provided is inaccurate, Apollo shall at its own cost rectify the inaccuracy without delay. Apollo will not be-liable for any loss or damage suffered by HCL in respect of such inaccuracies. \n', '  "Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other articles of this agreement, then the provisions of those articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this article-" \n', ' "Alt, VIII-A  \n \n\n (1) Royalties and fees for technical services arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State. \n', ' (2) However, such royalties and fees for technical services may also be taxed in the Contracting State in which they arise, and according to the laws of that State. But insofar as the fees for technical services are concerned, the tax so charged shall not exceed 20 per cent of the gross amount of such fees. \n', ' (3) The term "royalties" as used in this article means payment of any kind received as a consideration for the use of, or the right to use, any copyright of literary, artistic or scientific work including cinematograph films or films or tapes used for radio or television broadcasting, any patent, trade mark, design or model, plan, secret formula or process, or for the use of, or the right to use, industrial, commercial, or scientific equipment, or for information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific experience. \n', '  "The recitals in the agreement as also the provisions contained in Clause (6) thereof showed that the obligation undertaken by the assessee did not end merely with the handing over of the secret processes, but also extended to helping the Indian company in exploiting these processes property, efficiently and economically. The handing over of the know-how or secret processes was intimately connected and concerned with the obligation which was undertaken by the assessee in Clause (6). Therefore, it was properly held that part of the technical fees, accrued in India." \n', '  "Held, that, firstly, the agreement between the assessee and the foreign company was for a period of ten years only. Secondly, it was in respect of certain secret or patent formulations owned or controlled by the foreign company. The payment, though called \'Research contribution\' in the agreement, was nothing but the consideration correlated to the extent of the exploitation of the secret formulations and patent rights and various other rights belonging to the foreign company by the assessee in India and that it was for the exclusive right to manufacture the products that the payment was made and it was nothing else but \'royalty\' as known to law and to the international commercial world in the context of such agreements. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 48,698 made by the assessee to the foreign company during the relevant period was royalty payment and was liable to deduction of tax at other lower rate of 50 per cent as prescribed in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1971." \n']}, {'Title': 'Aamir Raza Husain And Anr. vs Cinevistaas Limited And Ors. on 18 September, 2002', 'DocID': 886570, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['"7.7 The grant of rights, representations, warranties, indemnities and, confidentiality obligations contained herein shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement."   \n', '"Monday June 24, 2002\n \n\nThis is to state that a meeting was held at the Circuit House, Kargil on Sunday, June 23, 2002 at 18.30 Hrs. in the presence of Shri T. Namgyal, S.P. Kargil. The following were also present- \n', ' From Cinevista  \n \n\n', '  1. Mr. Sunil Mehta  \n \n\n']}, {'Title': 'Siemens Aktiengesellschaft vs Income-Tax Officer on 6 July, 1987', 'DocID': 1967060, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': [' Article III(1) - Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below, tax shall not be levied in one of the territories on the industrial or commercial profits of an enterprise of the other territory unless profits are derived in the first-mentioned territory through a permanent establishment of the said enterprise situated in the first-mentioned territory. If profits are so derived, tax may be levied in the first-mentioned territory on the profits attributable to  the  said permanent   establishment.  \n', " Article III(3) - For the purpose of this Agreement the term 'industrial or commercial profits' shall not include income in the form of rents, royalties, interest, dividends, management charges, remuneration for labour or personal services or income from the operation of ships or aircraft but shall include rents or royalties in respect of cinematographic films.  \n", ' Article IX - Income from immovable property may be taxed in the territory in which the property is situated. For this purpose any rent or royalty or other income derived from the operation of a mine, quarry or any other extraction of natural resources shall be regarded as income from immovable property.  \n', 'To support this proposition, it was submitted that in Article V and subsequent Articles of the D.T.A. Agreement, the species of income out of the types of income which were enumerated in Article III(3) which alone fell within the ambit of taxation were spelt out. Unless such types of income referred to in Article III(3) fell within the species specified in Article V or any of the subsequent Articles of the D.T.A. Agreement, such amount, it was contended, would not be taxable in India. In this regard reliance was placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Visakhapatnam Port Trust [1983] 144 ITR 146.\n', 'Explanation 2. For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains") for :--\n', 'Explanation 2. For the purposes of this clause, "royalty" means consideration (including any lump sum consideration but excluding any consideration which would be the income of the recipient chargeable under the head "Capital gains") for :--\n', '(i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ;\n', " The words 'subject to the provisions of paragraph (3)' in art. III(1) would in our view indicate that while 'industrial or commercial income' of the foreign enterprise are not taxable in India, the rents, royalties, interest, dividends, etc., derived by the foreign enterprise from  sources in India are taxable....Further, in our opinion, the items : rents, royalties, dividends, interest, etc., are taxable only when they satisfy the conditions mentioned for their liability to tax as envisaged in the various specific articles such as arts. V, VI, VII, VIII, etc.  \n \n\nonly that type of royalties would be taxable to which there may be reference in Article V and Articles subsequent thereto. The only reference to 'royalty' is in Article IX and the royalty envisaged by such Article is only that royalty derived from the operation of a mine, quarry or any other extraction of natural resources.\n", 'It has come to the notice of the Board that sometimes effect to the provisions of double taxation avoidance agreement is not given by the assessing officers when they find that the provisions of the agreement are not in conformity with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n', ' 6.1. In consideration of the supply of technical know-how and training of Siemens India personnel by Siemens with regard to Contract Products (for which Siemens India or its licensees already held manufacturing licences granted by the Government of India) as well as in consideration of the supply of technical know-how on New Developments, Siemens India shall pay to Siemens fees at the rates specified in Annex A hereto, on the basis of the "ex-factory selling price" of the respective Contract Products and parts thereof manufactured and sold by Siemens India and its licensees during the validity of this agreement as defined in Article 9.1 hereof. With regard to this Agreement, Contract Products shall be considered as "sold" when invoiced, by Siemens India to the purchaser ; or if not invoiced, when delivered, dispatched or set apart for the own use of Siemens India.  \n', 'The payment is for the supply of technical know-how, the training of Siemens India personnel as also for the supply of technical know-how on new developments for contract products. Contract products are those products which have been set out in Annexure \'A\' to each of the relevant agreements. In the present agreement they are motors, low voltage switchgear, switchboards, high voltage switchgear, etc. The term "new developments" has also been defined. This definition comes in para 1.5 at page 126 of paper book No. I and reads as under :--\n', ' 11.1.1. For services rendered and to be rendered in Germany, a technical assistance fee of 1% of the total aggregate of the net selling prices of the CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS produced and sold by BEL reduced by the landed cost of the components and raw materials supplied by SIEMENS in accordance with Clause 9 and consumed in the production of the said CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS sold.  \n', ' 11.1.1. For services rendered and to be rendered in Germany, a technical assistance fee of 1% of the total aggregate of the net selling prices of the CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS produced and sold by BEL reduced by the landed cost of the components and raw materials supplied by SIEMENS in accordance with Clause 9 and consumed in the production of the said CONTRACT TUBES and CONTRACT SHIELDS sold.  \n', '8.1 In consideration of the documentation prepared and transmitted in Germany and the technical assistance rendered in Germany comprising the training of CCI personnel by SIEMENS in Germany as per Article 3, CCI shall pay to SIEMENS a lump sum payment of DM 1,30,000 (one hundred thirty-thousand Destuche Marks), subject to the applicable Indian taxes, in three equal instalments as detailed below :\n']}, {'Title': 'Microfibres Inc vs Girdhar And Co. And Ors. on 13 January, 2006', 'DocID': 1210059, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['Provided further that no suit or any other proceeding for relief under this subsection shall be instituted in any court below the court of District Judge.\n', '3) In any suit or any other proceeding for relief under Sub-section (2), every ground on which the registration of a design may be cancelled Under Section 19 shall be available as a ground of defense.\n']}, {'Title': 'Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Stanton & Stavely (Overseas) Ltd. on 16 August, 1982', 'DocID': 1479319, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['  "income by way of royalties received from Government or a local authority or any Indian concern." \n', '  "In the case of a non-resident company which has not made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within India, its income by way of any interest or fees for rendering technical services received from Government or a local authority or any Indian concern.\'" \n', '"(i) Forth to sell and deliver to IISCO copies of all such detailed drawing and specifications as IISCO may reasonably require for the purchase and installation and operation of the Specialist Plant :\n', '"(i) Forth to sell and deliver to IISCO copies of all such detailed drawing and specifications as IISCO may reasonably require for the purchase and installation and operation of the Specialist Plant :\n', '(ii) To lend to IISCO as and when may be required by IISCO on reasonable notice for temporary service with IISCO a qualified engineer whose duties shall be to supervise the erection of the Kulti extension and in particular the installation and starting up of the Specialist Plant;\n', '  "For the purpose of the manufacture of Stanton products (but not further of otherwise) Stanton hereby agrees to grant to IISCO and IISCO hereby agrees to take for the continuance of this agreement or the respec\n\ntive lives of the Stanton patents whichever shall be the shorter full and free licence and authority to manufacture in territory as aforesaid Stanton products in accordance with the specifications of the said Stanton patents or any part thereof or any process or invention therein described and to sell the same for use within IISCO territory. Every such licence shall be in the form specified in the First Schedule hereto." \n', '  "For the purpose of the manufacture of Stanton products (but not further of otherwise) Stanton hereby agrees to grant to IISCO and IISCO hereby agrees to take for the continuance of this agreement or the respec\n\ntive lives of the Stanton patents whichever shall be the shorter full and free licence and authority to manufacture in territory as aforesaid Stanton products in accordance with the specifications of the said Stanton patents or any part thereof or any process or invention therein described and to sell the same for use within IISCO territory. Every such licence shall be in the form specified in the First Schedule hereto." \n', '"(a) A commission at the specified rate (as hereinafter defined) on the nett selling price (as hereinafter defined) of all Stanton products manufactured and sold by IISCO during the continuance of this agreement, such commission to become due and payable in the manner specified in Clause 6 hereof. The specified rate in respect of all Stanton products manufactured prior to the reduced commission date shall be three per centum and thereafter one and a half percentum. The nett selling price above referred to shall mean the nett price at the plant of manufacture realised by IISCO :\n', '(b) Except always in so far as may otherwise be agreed in writing from time to time an amount equivalent to the cost to Stanton of all salary and travelling expenses (including board while in IISCO territory) of the engineer whose services shall be lent to IISCO pursuant to Clause 2 of this agreement and all other engineers or other employees of Stanton whose services Stanton may hereafter agree shall be lent to IISCO in connection with the operation of any plant of IISCO for manufacture of Stanton products or the construction of any plant by IISCO for such purpose or advice in regard thereto, such payment to be made on monthly account nett against invoices ;\n', '"(a) A commission at the specified rate (as hereinafter defined) on the nett selling price (as hereinafter defined) of all Stanton products manufactured and sold by IISCO during the continuance of this agreement, such commission to become due and payable in the manner specified in Clause 6 hereof. The specified rate in respect of all Stanton products manufactured prior to the reduced commission date shall be three per centum and thereafter one and a half percentum. The nett selling price above referred to shall mean the nett price at the plant of manufacture realised by IISCO :\n', '(b) Except always in so far as may otherwise be agreed in writing from time to time an amount equivalent to the cost to Stanton of all salary and travelling expenses (including board while in IISCO territory) of the engineer whose services shall be lent to IISCO pursuant to Clause 2 of this agreement and all other engineers or other employees of Stanton whose services Stanton may hereafter agree shall be lent to IISCO in connection with the operation of any plant of IISCO for manufacture of Stanton products or the construction of any plant by IISCO for such purpose or advice in regard thereto, such payment to be made on monthly account nett against invoices ;\n', '(c) Amounts equivalent to any sums paid by Stanton to any engineers or other employees of IISCO who may be sent by IISCO to Stanton\'s plant (for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby agreed and declared that all salaries and travelling expenses including board while in England of any such employees shall be borne solely by IISCO)." \n', '  "If during the continuance of this agreement either party shall make, discover or acquire any further invention, patent, process or design in connection with or improvements upon or addition to the methods of manufacturing Stanton products or any modifications of or developments in machinery or apparatus used in connection therewith such party shall (unless prevented by the terms of any such acquisition) communicate the same to the other party and shall ensure if it shall have acquired the right so to do that such other shall receive full and sufficient licences, information and assistance thereon and in relation thereto and be enabled to use the same for the manufacture (in the case of IISCO) of Stanton products in IISCO territory during the continuance of this agreement and in accordance therewith without payment other than such as is hereinbefore provided or (in the case of Stanton) of or otherwise in relation to any products of Stanton (but not for the manufacture of Stanton products in IISCO territory during the continuance of this agreement) PROVIDED ALWAYS that if such rights shall only have been acquired by the one party subject to payment, that party shall be entitled to require from the other and the other shall if it shall desire to use such rights pay a fair proportion (to be agreed between the parties hereto or failing such agreement to be determined by the respective auditors for the time being of the parties or an umpire previously appointed by such auditors) of such payment." \n', '"8. As regards the foreign participant\'s tax liability also, the first question would be whether the amount received for the supply of technical know-how, is a receipt on capital account or on revenue account. The answer would again depend on the facts of the case. It has to be observed that the nature of the outgoing in the hands of the Indian participant will not always be determinative of the nature of the receipt in the hands of the foreign party. In the U.K., it has been held by courts that a receipt from the sale of know-how would be a capital receipt only where the sale of the technical know-how or the imparting of technical knowledge and information results in the transfer or parting with of the property or assets or any special knowledge or skill which would ripen into a form of property and that after such transfer, the transferor is deprived of using the asset. (Please see Moriarty v. Evans Medical Supplies Ltd. [1959] 35 ITR 707 (HL)). In all other cases, where no capital asset or property is parted with and the transaction is merely a method of trading \n\nby which the recipient acquires the particular sum of money as profits and gains of that trade, the consideration received for the sale of technical know-how will be on revenue account.\n', '9. If the amount received by the foreign participant is a revenue receipt in his hands and the amount is received by him outside India the further questions that would arise are, whether the payment is :\n', '(i) for services rendered abroad, or\n \n\n', '"Royalty, a payment reserved by the grantor of a patent, lease of a mine or similar right, and payable proportionately to the use made of the right of the grantee. It is usually a payment of money, but may be payment in kind, that is, of part of the produce of the exercise of the right.\n', '"Royalty, a payment reserved by the grantor of a patent, lease of a mine or similar right, and payable proportionately to the use made of the right of the grantee. It is usually a payment of money, but may be payment in kind, that is, of part of the produce of the exercise of the right.\n', 'Royalty also means a payment which is made to an author or composer by a publisher in respect of each copy of his work which is sold, or to an inventor in respect of each article sold under the patent,\n \n\nFees, perquisites allowed to officers in the administration of justice, as a recompense for their labour and trouble, ascertained either by Acts of Parliament, by rule or order of court, or by ancient usage, in modern \n\n\ntimes frequently commuted for a salary, e.g., by the Justices Clerks Act, 1877, Sections 2-4 (repealed).\n']}, {'Title': 'The Income Tax Officer, T.D.S. - Viii, ... vs Raj Television Network Ltd., ... on 30 October, 2001', 'DocID': 139044, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['   Date of Payment\t\t Amount\n01.02.1996\t\tRs. 2,02,12,500 \n27.03.1966 \t\tRs. 1,02,54,000\n\nTotal ... \t\tRs. 3,04,66,500 \n \n\nThus, the total payment was made in a sum of Rs. 3,04,66, 500/=. According to the Revenue, while making this payment, Raj TV should have deducted tax under Section 195 of the I.T. Act but did not do so. The ITO., (TDS) issued Show Cause Notice for treating the assessee in default under Section. 201(1) of the I.T.Act. The ITO held that the amount paid by RAJ TV to RTV is an income that arose and accrued in India to RTV, England and that the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act will be attracted because of the reasons that RTV has rendered service in Indian Territory by beaming signals across the taxable territory in India which are utilised by the local channels. Further, there was a continuity of business connection between the assessee company and RTV which was effective from 15.11.95. Also, the foreign company has received the transponding hire charges only due to its business connection in India.\n', ' (iva) "The use or the right to use any industrial, commercial or scientific equipment." \n']}, {'Title': 'Shriram Capital Ltd, Chennai vs Dcit, Corp Cir-6(1), Chennai on 18 February, 2022', 'DocID': 176861207, 'matching_columns': ['"7.     We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.\nThe only issue in the present appeal relates to disallowance u/s14A of the\nAct. Admittedly, assessee made investments which yielded dividend income\nof Rs.61,44,03,001/- and investments were made in subsidiary companies\nfor strategic purpose. Admittedly, assessee itself had offered suo motu\ndisallowance of Rs.73,602/- u/s.14A of the Act. The provisions of Sub Section\n(2) of Section 14A of the Act provides that resort to provisions u/s.14A of\nthe Act can be made only if he is not satisfied with the correctness of the\nclaim of the assessee in respect of expenditure incurred to earn exempt\nincome. Therefore, it is mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to\nrecord a satisfaction as to correctness or otherwise of the claim of the\nassessee regarding expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. In the\npresent case, assessee suo motu offered disallowance of Rs.73,602/-. From\nthe perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that there is no findings by the\nAssessing Officer as to the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the\nassessee that only an expenditure of Rs.73,602/- was incurred. In this\nabsences of any findings by the Assessing Officer, resort to provisions of\nSection 14A of the Act cannot be made as ruled by Hon\'ble Bombay High\nCourt in the case of Reliance Capital Asset Management Ltd (supra) and the\nSLP against this judgment was dismissed by Hon\'ble Supreme Court in 259\nTaxman 83. The Hon\'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment\nLtd (supra) has upheld this principle by holding as under:-\n\n       "41. Having regard to the language of section 14A(2) of the Act, read\n       with rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying\n       the theory of apportionment, the Assessing Officer needs to record\n       satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu\n       disallowance under section 14A was not correct. It will be in those\n       cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the\n       Assessing Officer was not accepting the said apportionment. In that\n       eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect.\n       Further, while recording such a satisfaction, the nature of the loan\n       taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/ making the\n       investment in shares is to be examined by the Assessing Officer\'\'.\n\nRecently, the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal to which one of us i.e. the\nAccountant Member is the author of the order, in the case of City Union Bank\nLtd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) 74 ITR Trib (644)\nChennai held as follows:-\n\n       "As regards to other limb of the argument of the assessee that in the\n       absences of any finding by the Assessing Officer as to how the\n       contention of the assessee that no expenditure was incurred is\n       incorrect no disallowance should be made. We find from the\n       assessment order that the assessee bank itself has offered a sum of\n       â\x82¹2,19,751/- under the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. From the\n                                       7           I.T.A. Nos.3168, 3216, 3255 & 3217/Chny/18\n\n\n       perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, it is clear that the\n       Assessing Officer had not assigned any reason whatsoever as to how\n       the claim of the assessee is incorrect. In the similar facts, the Hon\'ble\n       Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT, 402\n       ITR 640 held that in the absence of the finding of the Assessing\n       Officer resort to provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D of the\n       Rules cannot be made. This decision was followed by the Co-\n       ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Karur Vysya Bank\n       (supra) cited by holding as under:-\n\n              "Ground No. 8 challenges the addition of â\x82¹3,88,882/- invoking\n              the provision of Section 14A of the Act. It is the contention of\n              the appellant that the appellant had not incurred any\n              expenditure to earn exempt income. The Assessing Officer\n              had not given any findings as to how the claim of the assessee-\n              bank that no expenditure was incurred to earn the exempt\n              income was incorrect. In the absence of this finding resort to\n              the provisions of rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules cannot be\n              made as held by the Hon\'ble Supreme Court in the case of\n              Maxopp Investment Ltd vs. CIT, (2018) 402 ITR 640.\n              Therefore this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is\n              allowed. Accordingly, this ground of appeal stands allowed in\n              favour of the assessee\'\'.\n\n Similar view was taken up by the Hon\'ble Delhi High Court in the\n       case of CIT vs. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd, 370 ITR 338 and\n       PCIT vs. Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105\n       taxmann.com 274. The Hon\'ble Delhi High Court had firmly held\n       that mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee per se cannot be\n       accepted. This decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Moonstar\n       Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, was affirmed by the\n       Hon\'ble Supreme Court in the case of dismissal of SLP in PCIT vs.\n       Moonstar Securities Trading and Finance Co. (P) Ltd, 105\n       taxmann.com 274\'\'.\n\nIn the light of the above decisions, admittedly, in the present case, the\nAssessing Officer had not recorded any findings as to the correctness or\notherwise of the claim of assessee company that only expenditure of\nRs.73,602/- was incurred to earn exempt income. Therefore, the Assessing\nOfficer was not justified in resort to provisions u/s.14A of the Act.\nAccordingly, no disallowance can be made u/s.14A of the Act.\n\n08.    It is unnecessary for us to deal with other arguments made by the\nassessee since we had held that no resort can be made to provisions of\nSection 14A of the Act.\n                                            8           I.T.A. Nos.3168, 3216, 3255 & 3217/Chny/18\n      09.   In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed."'], 'matching_indents': []}, {'Title': 'Sonata Information Technology Ltd. vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 31 January, 2006', 'DocID': 456079, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['1. Actuate Corporation, USA\n \n\n', '2. Borland Australia Ply Ltd.\n', '3. Business Objects.\n', " Defined generally, the word 'royalty' means a share of the product or profit reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property; the share of the production or profit it paid to the owner; a share of the product or proceeds therefrom reserved to the owner for permitting another to use the property; the share of the produce reserved to the owner for permitting another to exploit and use the property; a share of the profit, reserved by the owner for permitting another to use the property; the amount reserved or the rental to be paid the original owner of the whole estate.\n", "An asset would be said to be exploited only when it is replicated or distributed or sold. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. , after considering many decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts had observed that-\n", "An agreement was entered into between Microsoft Regional Sales Corporation and the appellant on 1-7-2003. This agreement provided for the appellant to be appointed as its Non-Exclusive Distributor in India for the distribution of Microsoft Corporation product. The Distributor's rights to distribute product under the agreement extended only to the territory defined in the agreement.\n", 'Clause 2 of the agreement provides for appointment, which reads as under:\n', ' 2. Appointment. - Subject to the provisions of this Agreement MRS appoints the Distributor as its non-exclusive distributor of the Products in the Territory.\n', '4. Miscellaneous:\n', '(a) All Confidential Information and Confidential Materials are and shall remain the property of MRS. By disclosing information to Company, MRS does not grant any express or implied right to Company to or under Microsoft patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secret information.\n', '(b) If MRS or any MRS affiliate provides pre-release PC operating system software ("Product") as Confidential Information or Confidential Materials under this Agreement:\n', 'Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines as under.-\n', 'Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 defines as under.-\n', 'Article 10\n \n\nComputer Programmes and Compilations of Data\n  \n\n', '1. Computer programmes, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).\n', '7. Material object which is the subject of copyright is different from copyright. - Copyright is different from the material object, which is the subject of the copyright. So, a transfer of the material object does not necessarily involve a transfer of the copyright. Where the plaintiffs sold certain electroblocks for the purpose of printing certain drawings, and the purchasers lent these blocks to the defendants in order that they, in turn, might print from them, it was held, that the plaintiffs were entitled to restrain the defendants from doing so, notwithstanding the permission of the purchasers. The sale of the books could not have had the effect of an assignment of copyright.\n', " In order for an assignment to be valid, it must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor. It has been held that sufficient writing might be provided by an invoice or receipt. The assignment should identify the work concerned with sufficient clarity so that it can be ascertained, though the courts have admitted oral ('parol') evidence to assist in the process of identification. No special form of words is required, so a transfer of 'all the partnership assets' will include a transfer of any copyright owned by the partnership. Assignment of copyright is a distinct legal transaction and is not effected by mere sale or transfer of the work itself. Thus, if a person sells an original painting or manuscript, this (of itself) only transfers the personal property right in the chattel: the copyright remains with its owner. If a vendor wishes to transfer the copyright as well as the personal property in the chattel, this should be done explicitly.\n", '6.9 Indian statutory law treats software as goods and levies sales tax, excise and custom duty on it as goods as the extract below indicates:\n']}, {'Title': 'Lg Electronics India Pvt Ltd vs Bharat Bhogilal Patel & Others on 13 July, 2012', 'DocID': 48055807, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['             a) That this court has no territorial jurisdiction to\n             entertain and try the present proceedings as no part of\n             cause of action qua the said complaint has arisen within\n             the jurisdiction of this court. The defendant no. 1 is\n             carrying on business in Mumbai and the defendant no. 2\n             is   the   commissioner    of   customs       (Import)   Special\n             Investigation and is also having office in Mumbai. The\n             chief commissioner of customs is added as defendant in\n             order to create jurisdiction of this court.\n', '       (a) "goods infringing intellectual property rights" means any\n       goods which are made, reproduced, put into circulation or\n       otherwise used in breach of the intellectual property laws in\n       India or outside India and without the consent of the right\n       holder or a person duly authorized to do so by the right\n       holder;\n', '       (b) "intellectual property" means a copyright as defined in\n       the Copyright Act, 1957, trade mark as defined in the Trade\n\nCS (OS) No.2982/2011                                        Page 29 of 80\nMarks Act,1999, patent as defined in the Patents Act, 1970,\n       design as defined in the Designs Act, 2000 and geographical\n       indications as defined in the Geographical Indications of\n       Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999;\n', '             "4. It is pertinent to mention that while the mandatory\n             obligations under Articles 51 to 60 of the TRIPS dealing\n             with border measures are restricted to Copyright and\n             Trade Marks infringement only, the said Rules deal with\n\nCS (OS) No.2982/2011                                       Page 35 of 80\n              Patents, Designs and Geographical Indications violations\n             as well, in conformity with the practice prevailing in\n             some other countries, notably EU countries. While it is\n             not difficult for Customs officers to determine\n             Copyright and Trade Marks infringements at the\n             border based on available data/inputs, it may not\n             be so in the case of the other three violations,\n             unless the offences have already been established\n             by a judicial pronouncement in India and the\n             Customs is called upon or required to merely\n             implement such order. In other words, extreme\n             caution needs to be exercised at the time of\n             determination of infringement of these three\n             intellectual property rights."\n', 'ARTICLE 51: Suspension of Release by Custom Authorities\nMembers shall, in conformity with the provisions set out below,\nadopt procedures to enable aright holder, who has valid grounds\nfor suspecting that the importation of counterfeit trademark or\npirated copyright goods may take place, to lodge an application in\nwriting with competent authorities, administrative or judicial, for\nthe suspension by the customs authorities of the release into free\ncirculation of such goods. Members may enable such an application\nto be made in respect of goods which involve other infringements\nof intellectual property rights, provided that the requirements of\nthis Section are met. Members may also provide for corresponding\nprocedures concerning the suspension by the customs authorities\nof the release of infringing goods destined for exportation from\ntheir territories.\n', '   a) Article 51 provides for the different kind of treatment relating\n       to border measures when it comes to trade mark, copyright\n       infringement on the one hand vis-a-vis the infringement of\n       the other forms of intellectual property rights. The said\n       article 51 uses the expression "shall" making it obligatory\n       upon the member states to provide for the procedure for the\n       suspension of the goods on the basis of the suspicion of the\n       right holder relating to the infringement of the trade mark or\n       copyright pirated goods. Curiously, the same very article\n       uses the expression "may" which making it optional for the\n       member countries to provide such mechanism for other\n       forms of intellectual properties with the proviso that the\n       conditions set out in this chapter are met with.\n', ' Article 1\n', '       - that the right-holder inform the customs authorities in\n\nCS (OS) No.2982/2011                                       Page 52 of 80\n        writing within 10 working days, or three working days in\n       the case of perishable goods, of receipt of the\n       notification provided for in Article 9, that the goods\n       concerned by the procedure infringe an intellectual\n       property right referred to in Article 2(1) and provide\n       those authorities with the written agreement of the\n       declarant, the holder or the owner of the goods to\n       abandon the goods for destruction. With the agreement\n       of the customs authorities, this information may be\n       provided directly to customs by the declarant, the\n       holder or the owner of the goods. This agreement shall\n       be presumed to be accepted when the declarant, the\n       holder or the owner of the goods has not specifically\n       opposed destruction within the prescribed period. This\n       period may be extended by a further ten working days\n       where circumstances warrant it;\n', ' Article 1\n             Nature and Scope of Obligations\n\n', ' Article 1\n             Nature and Scope of Obligations\n\n']}, {'Title': 'Asia Publishing House vs John Wiley And Sons, Inc. on 18 August, 1967', 'DocID': 1937130, 'matching_columns': [], 'matching_indents': ['Question-.-(i) Whether Wileys were under the said agreement dated 1st October 1956 and in law entitled to give Asia the notice dated 1st March 1963.\n', 'Question-.-(i) Whether Wileys were under the said agreement dated 1st October 1956 and in law entitled to give Asia the notice dated 1st March 1963.\n', 'Answer:-Yes.\n', 'Question-.-(i) Whether Wileys were under the said agreement dated 1st October 1956 and in law entitled to give Asia the notice dated 1st March 1963.\n', 'Answer:-Yes.\n', 'Question:-(ii) Whether the said Notice was illegal and/or in breach of the Agreement and if so, to what extent.\n', '(1) Is there an error made by the arbitrator in the construction of any of the terms of the reprint agreement? If so, is the error apparent on the face of the award. If there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award, was that question specifically referred as such for decision by the arbitrator, or was it merely an error of law made by the arbitrator in the course of deciding any question in dispute but not specifically referred?\n', '(1) Is there an error made by the arbitrator in the construction of any of the terms of the reprint agreement? If so, is the error apparent on the face of the award. If there is an error of law apparent on the face of the award, was that question specifically referred as such for decision by the arbitrator, or was it merely an error of law made by the arbitrator in the course of deciding any question in dispute but not specifically referred?\n', '(2) Is the award liable to be set aside on the ground that there is such an error apparent on the face of the award as would deprive the arbitrator of jurisdiction to so decide?\n', "Memorandum of Agreement made this first day of October, 1956, Between John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 440 Fourth Avenue, New York 16, New York, U.S.A. (hereinafter called the Proprietors) of the one part and Asia Publishing House, Contractor Building, Nicol Road, Ballard Estate, Bombay 1, India, (hereinafter called the Publishers) of the other part whereby it is mutually agreed as follows representing the Proprietors' publications (hereinafter called the said works).\n", '1. The Proprietors hereby grant to the Publishers the sole and exclusive license to print and publish the said works in the English language throughout the Republic of India subject to the terms and conditions following.\n', "2. The Publishers shall inform the Proprietors the titles of the books they are interested in publishing in the Publishers' territory. No printing work shall be carried out by the Publishers until they obtain permission in writing from the Proprietors to do so.\n", " ...The agreement there, although different in certain terms from the present agreement, has certain features very ' much in common. In that case (as in the present) the licensee was to make use of the designs of the licensor, and in both cases, it appears to me, the reputation of the licensor might be affected by the goods manufactured by the licensee. In the case of that agreement there was an express provision for determination in certain specified events, namely, in the event of the commission or remuneration under the agreement not reaching a certain specified sum; and it was because of that express- provision in the agreement that Jenkins J. took the view that it was not determinable on notice.\n", " ...The agreement there, although different in certain terms from the present agreement, has certain features very ' much in common. In that case (as in the present) the licensee was to make use of the designs of the licensor, and in both cases, it appears to me, the reputation of the licensor might be affected by the goods manufactured by the licensee. In the case of that agreement there was an express provision for determination in certain specified events, namely, in the event of the commission or remuneration under the agreement not reaching a certain specified sum; and it was because of that express- provision in the agreement that Jenkins J. took the view that it was not determinable on notice.\n", 'Mr. Sen urged that in the present agreement also there is an express provision for determination in certain specified events and therefore in view of that express provision it should be held that the present agreement was not determinable on notice.\n', ' ...The first thing that one observes is that it is a mere licence, or the operative part of that agreement is a mere licence, to the Canadian company to manufacture, sell and exploit; and accordingly, on the principles which I have adopted, prima facie that licence is terminable. It does not impose any obligation upon the Canadian company to manufacture, sell or exploit any of the Martin-Baker products at all, though it does bar Martin-Baker from entering into any agreement with another party on the American continent to manufacture, sell or exploit if the Canadian company do nothing at all. That alone appears to me to be a consideration which points quite plainly to the view that Martin-Baker cannot have intended that they were to have their hands entirely tied by what may be wholly passive action by the Canadian company. That is one element in this agreement which points strongly in my view to determinability.\n', ' ...The first thing that one observes is that it is a mere licence, or the operative part of that agreement is a mere licence, to the Canadian company to manufacture, sell and exploit; and accordingly, on the principles which I have adopted, prima facie that licence is terminable. It does not impose any obligation upon the Canadian company to manufacture, sell or exploit any of the Martin-Baker products at all, though it does bar Martin-Baker from entering into any agreement with another party on the American continent to manufacture, sell or exploit if the Canadian company do nothing at all. That alone appears to me to be a consideration which points quite plainly to the view that Martin-Baker cannot have intended that they were to have their hands entirely tied by what may be wholly passive action by the Canadian company. That is one element in this agreement which points strongly in my view to determinability.\n', " Furthermore, I think it is plain throughout this agreement that there are terms which involve the highest degree of mutual confidence and trust between the two contracting parties, and therefore that it is an agreement which even on the most limited application of Lord Selborne's doctrine would not be permanent, but would be terminable.\n", ' ...A licence in the strict sense is, as I said during the argument, nothing but a permission which would carry with it immunity from proceedings to those who act upon the permission. It is really a dispensation and nothing more than a dispensation.\n', ' ...A licence in the strict sense is, as I said during the argument, nothing but a permission which would carry with it immunity from proceedings to those who act upon the permission. It is really a dispensation and nothing more than a dispensation.\n', 'In the case of Heap v. Hartley (1880) 42 Ch. D. 461, Cotton L.J. referring to the expression "licence" and what that term carried, said this (p. 468) :\n', ' ...A licence in the strict sense is, as I said during the argument, nothing but a permission which would carry with it immunity from proceedings to those who act upon the permission. It is really a dispensation and nothing more than a dispensation.\n', 'In the case of Heap v. Hartley (1880) 42 Ch. D. 461, Cotton L.J. referring to the expression "licence" and what that term carried, said this (p. 468) :\n', ' ...That is pointedly put in the judgment of Lord Hatherley, then Vice-Chancellor, in this way:-\n', ' ...If tie play be not produced in London by the said George Edwardes within three months from this date all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensors.\n', ' ...If tie play be not produced in London by the said George Edwardes within three months from this date all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensors.\n', 'It was this clause which it was said compares with clause 11 of the agreement in the present case wherein it is provided that should the publishers be declared bankrupt or should they violate any of the terms of the agreement and not rectify such violations within six months of having received written notice from the proprietors to do so, "then all rights to publish or sell the said works in the English language shall revert to the proprietors..." In that case that Clause (clause 5) weighed heavily in favour of it being held that there was an assignment of the copyright. After referring to clause 1 Lord Hailsham held (p. 15&):\n', ' ...If tie play be not produced in London by the said George Edwardes within three months from this date all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensors.\n', 'It was this clause which it was said compares with clause 11 of the agreement in the present case wherein it is provided that should the publishers be declared bankrupt or should they violate any of the terms of the agreement and not rectify such violations within six months of having received written notice from the proprietors to do so, "then all rights to publish or sell the said works in the English language shall revert to the proprietors..." In that case that Clause (clause 5) weighed heavily in favour of it being held that there was an assignment of the copyright. After referring to clause 1 Lord Hailsham held (p. 15&):\n', " .. .That, in my view, plainly operates as an assignment to Mr. George Edwardes of the sole and exclusive right of representation within the area named in the clause, and I think that that view of the clause is strengthened, not only by the expression in clause 2, which stipulates that the copyright in the music shall remain the property of M. Messager, but also by the language of clause 5, which provides that in the event of non-production within three months 'all rights of representation as aforesaid shall revert to and become again the absolute property of the licensers.' That seems to me inept language in which to describe the mere cessation of a licence, and is much more apt to describe the reversion to the licensors of rights which had been assigned by clause I.\n \n\n", " ...In my opinion then by virtue of the provisions of the agreement and Section 1 of the Act, the plaintiffs if they exercise their option in respect of 'Captivity' will have an interest in the copyright. Until they exercise their option they will not be assignees of the copyright wholly or partially, or grantees of an interest in the copyright by licence under Section 5, Sub-section 2; for it is only the exercise of their option that converts then option to become proprietors or owners of a part of the copyright into equitable ownership of part of the copyright or an interest in the copyright. But they have in the meantime an option to become entitled to an interest in the copyright. Their interest has in the course of the case been called an inchoate interest, it is a right in the plaintiffs to acquire an interest in the copyright by signifying their desire to do so, and is an interest in the copyright in the same way as an option to purchase a piece of land or to acquire certain shares is an interest in tile land or shares.\n", ' It seems to me, therefore, that, on the cases, there is none which compels us to hold that a mere referencs to the contract in the award entitles us to look at the contract. It may be that in particular cases a specific reference to a particular clause of a contract may incorporate the contract, or that clause of it, in the award. I think that we are driven back to first principles in this matter, namely, that an award can only be set aside for error which is on its face. It is true that an award can incorporate another document so as to entitle one to read that document as part of the award and, by reading them together, find an error on the face of the award. But the question whether a contract, or a clause in a contract, is incorporated in the award is a question of construction of the award. It seems to me that the test is put as conveniently as it can be in the words of Denning L.J., which I have already cited from Blaiber & Co., Ltd. v. Leopold Newborne [London], Ltd. (1953) 2 Lloyd\'s Rep. at p. 429 \' As I read the cases, if the arbitrator says: "On the wording of this clause I hold\' sj and so, then that clause is impliedly incorporated into the award because he invites the reading of it.\n', ' Any and every dispute difference or question which shall at any time arise between the parties hereto touching the construction meaning or effect of these presents or of any clause or thing herein contained or the rights or liabilities of the parties he-rounder or otherwise howsoever relating to the premises shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or failing agreement to be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being and this shall be deemed a submission....\n', 'The question raised upon these facts was whether there was a reference to the arbitrator of any question of law as such or merely a general reference to arbitration. Viscount Cave L.C. held that there was in that case a reference to the arbitrator of the question which had arisen on the construction of the deed of cancellation. The arbitration clause in the deed applied in terms to every dispute, difference or question which might arise between the parties touching the "construction, meaning\', or effect" of the deed and the appointment of the arbitrator showed that differences had arisen as to construction, and the arbitrator was appointed to determine those differences. Therefore Viscount Cave L.C. concluded "The reference, therefore, was a reference as to construction", and when there was such a reference the principle applicable \\vas as follows (p. 409):\n', ' Any and every dispute difference or question which shall at any time arise between the parties hereto touching the construction meaning or effect of these presents or of any clause or thing herein contained or the rights or liabilities of the parties he-rounder or otherwise howsoever relating to the premises shall be referred to the arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or failing agreement to be nominated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the time being and this shall be deemed a submission....\n', 'The question raised upon these facts was whether there was a reference to the arbitrator of any question of law as such or merely a general reference to arbitration. Viscount Cave L.C. held that there was in that case a reference to the arbitrator of the question which had arisen on the construction of the deed of cancellation. The arbitration clause in the deed applied in terms to every dispute, difference or question which might arise between the parties touching the "construction, meaning\', or effect" of the deed and the appointment of the arbitrator showed that differences had arisen as to construction, and the arbitrator was appointed to determine those differences. Therefore Viscount Cave L.C. concluded "The reference, therefore, was a reference as to construction", and when there was such a reference the principle applicable \\vas as follows (p. 409):\n', " If this be so, I think it follows that, unless it appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator has proceeded on principles which were wrong in law, his conclusions as to the construction of the deed must be accepted. No doubt an award may be set aside for an error of law appearing on the face of it; and no doubt a question of construction is (generally speaking) a question of law. But where a question of construction is the very thing referred for arbitration, then the decision of the arbitrator upon that point cannot be set aside by the Court only because the Court would itself have come to a different conclusion. If it appears by the award that the arbitrator has proceeded illegally-for instance, that he has decided on evidence which in law was not admissible or on principles of construction which the law does not countenance, then there is error in law which may be ground for setting aside the award; but the mere dissent of the Court from arbitrator's conclusion on construction is not enough for that purpose.\n", ' By clause 2 of the agreement Asia were to obtain the permission of Wiley before publishing any of the said books, but apart from the question whether such permission can be unreasonably withheld, the sole and exclusive rights to print, publish and sell the said books in India etc. remained in Asia. In other words Wiley are not entitled to withhold permission to Asia and then grant permission to another in the territories of which Asia is the sole and exclusive licensee for the publication of the said books.\n', 'The reply to this pleading before the arbitrator is to be found in the reply on behalf of John Wiley & Sons dated October 14, 1964. In para. 2 Wileys said:\n', " With reference to para 2 of Asia's Statement of Claim, the construction sought to be put by Asia on Clause 2 of the Agreement is incorrect and Unsustainable, Asia acquired no license to print and publish any of the titles of Wileys except those in respect of which Wileys gave their consent in writing. Under the Agreement Wileys have the right to decide in respect of which titles they would give permission to Asia to print and publish them. Wileys are not bound to give any reasons for not giving their consent.\n"]}]

app.py

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+import streamlit as st
+import get_results
+import pandas as pd
+import pipelineoperation
+import json
+import insert_data
+
+#st.image("/home/sankalp-user/Pictures/schematiselda.png")
+
+st.write("<h4>Please visit the <a href='https://sankalpsrv.in/blog'>detailed blog post </a> and <a href = 'https://deepnote.com/workspace/mutaabik-bb27ba89-ef3a-49de-b973-2fca2f4c74b7/project/ICAT-Beta-90d69f02-b39a-4259-98fa-d4c4ad7d7557/notebook/Notebook%201-8b7b316e2a394f56ae2b43e06e1530f1'>Data Analytics Platform </a> for more and; See more by Schematise on <a href = 'https://linktr.ee/schematiselda'>  Linktree </a> <br> <a href='https://www.buymeacoffee.com/schematise' target='_blank'><img src='https://cdn.buymeacoffee.com/buttons/v2/default-yellow.png' alt='Buy Me A Coffee' style='height: 60px;width: 217px;' ></a></a> </h4>", unsafe_allow_html=True) 
+
+st.image("./ikanoon6_powered_transparent.png")
+
+#st.write("<a href = 'https://huggingface.co/datasets/schematise/ICAT-version1/blob/main/Competition.pdf'> <b> SEE THE QUERY COMPETITION RULES HERE </b> </a>", unsafe_allow_html=True)
+
+
+
+#st.image("./")
+
+st.title("Get example contract clauses - ICAT Query Pipeline (BETA)")
+
+searchquery = st.text_input("Search query for type of contracts e.g. 'arbitration', 'termination', 'trademark licensing'")
+
+results = get_results.main(searchquery)
+
+
+#st.dataframe(results)
+
+df = pd.DataFrame(results)
+
+dict_results = df.to_dict('records')
+
+st.button("Generate/View results after text-classification")
+
+# Serialize and write the dictionary to a file
+with open("Dict_Results.txt", "w") as fn:
+    json.dump(dict_results, fn)
+
+if st.button:
+    results_from_classifier = pipelineoperation.pipeline_operations(dict_results)
+else:
+    results_from_classifier = {}
+
+with open ("ResultsAfterClassification.txt", "w") as fn:
+    fn.write(str(results_from_classifier))
+
+try:
+
+    dict_from_classified_results = [{'Title': result['Title'],
+                        'Matching clauses': result['matching_columns_after_classification'] + result['matching_indents_after_classification']
+                        } for result in results_from_classifier]
+
+    filtered_data_list = [item for item in dict_from_classified_results if item.get('Matching clauses')]
+
+    df_to_display = pd.DataFrame(filtered_data_list)
+    st.dataframe(df_to_display)
+
+    insert_data.add_classified_results(results_from_classifier, searchquery)
+
+except Exception as e:
+    print(f"Error code: {e}")
+    st.write("Error: Click on the generate button if you haven't already")
+

get_results.py

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+
+import requests
+import insert_data
+from bs4 import BeautifulSoup
+#from dotenv import load_dotenv
+import os
+import streamlit as st
+
+#load_dotenv()
+api_key = st.secrets["IK_API_KEY"]
+headers = {
+    'authorization': f"Token {api_key}"
+}
+
+
+def get_text_for_new_docs(list_of_documents_not_present, searchusr, lst):
+    lst_new_data = {}
+    for id in list_of_documents_not_present:
+        try:
+            lst_new_data[id] = {'id': int(id), 'title': '', 'cleantext': '', 'blocktext': '', 'size': ''}
+            lst_new_data[id]['title'] = lst[id]['title']
+            lst_new_data[id]['size'] = lst[id]['size']
+
+        except:
+            print("Error in get_text_for_new_docs")
+
+        try:
+            cleantext, blocktext_lst = get_text(id, searchusr)
+            blocktext = str(blocktext_lst)
+        except:
+            cleantext = ''
+            blocktext = ''
+
+        lst_new_data[id]['cleantext'] = cleantext
+        lst_new_data[id]['blocktext'] = blocktext
+
+    return lst_new_data
+
+def get_text(id, searchusr):
+
+    idd = str(id)
+
+    st = ''
+    global headers
+    url = f'https://api.indiankanoon.org/doc/{idd}/'
+    res = requests.post(url, headers=headers).json()
+
+    print("Request for doc with id", idd, "sent")
+    try:
+        st = res['doc']
+        html_string = st
+        escaped_string = bytes(html_string, 'utf-8').decode('unicode-escape')
+        soup = BeautifulSoup(escaped_string, "html.parser")
+
+        st = soup.get_text()
+    except:
+        st = ''
+
+    try:
+        def get_blockquotes():
+            search_strings = ["clause", "agreement", " which reads as", " mutually agreed", " states the following"]
+            search_strings.append(str(searchusr))
+            soup2 = BeautifulSoup(html_string, 'html.parser')
+
+            filtered_paragraphs = []
+
+            # Find all elements and process them
+            elements = soup2.find_all()
+            for i, element in enumerate(elements):
+                # Check if the element is a paragraph containing any of the search strings
+                if element.name == 'p' and any(
+                        search_string in element.get_text() for search_string in search_strings):
+                    # Check the next three elements for <blockquote> elements
+                    j = i + 1
+                    while j < len(elements) and j <= i + 3:
+                        next_element = elements[j]
+                        if next_element.name == 'blockquote':
+                            filtered_paragraphs.append(next_element.get_text())
+                        j += 1
+            return filtered_paragraphs
+
+        filtered_paragraphs_lst = get_blockquotes()
+        # Combine the values from matching_indents list with newlines between them
+        # filtered_paragraphs = '\n'.join(filtered_paragraphs_lst)
+        filtered_paragraphs = filtered_paragraphs_lst
+    except:
+        filtered_paragraphs = ''
+
+    return st, filtered_paragraphs
+
+def get_docs(search):
+    global headers
+    S = requests.Session()
+    S.headers = headers
+    #lst = ["clause which reads as"]
+    lst = ["clause which reads as", " mutually agreed", "clause states the following"]
+    # lst += ["clause", "agreement"]
+    lst_data = {}
+    for qry in lst:
+        search = '"' + search + '"' + qry
+        search = search.replace(' ', '+')  # queries the search text
+        for page_num in range(0, 1):
+            url = f"https://api.indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput={search}&pagenum={page_num}"
+            res = S.post(url).json()
+
+            # if not res['docs']:
+            #    pass
+            # return []
+            print("Res printed is", res)
+            for doc in res.get('docs', []):  # safe access to 'docs'
+                doc_id = int(doc.get('tid', ''))
+                if doc_id:
+                    # Initialize a sub-dictionary if not already present
+                    if doc_id not in lst_data:
+                        lst_data[doc_id] = {'id': int(doc_id), 'title': '', 'size': ''}
+                    # Safely assign title and size with default values
+                    lst_data[doc_id]['title'] = doc.get('title', '')
+                    lst_data[doc_id]['size'] = doc.get('docsize', '')
+
+    return lst_data
+
+
+
+
+def main(shortcode):
+
+    if not shortcode:
+        return "Error: No shortcode provided", 400
+
+    # Simulate retrieving documents based on the shortcode
+    lst = get_docs(shortcode)
+
+    # Check for documents that are already present
+    list_of_docs_not_present = insert_data.check_for_already_present(lst)
+
+    # Identify documents that are already present
+    list_of_docs_already_present = [docid for docid in lst.keys() if docid not in list_of_docs_not_present]
+
+    # Get text for new documents that are not already present
+    lst_new_data = get_text_for_new_docs(list_of_docs_not_present, shortcode, lst)
+
+    # Writing new data to a file
+    # with open("new_data_output.txt", "w") as file:
+    #    file.write(json.dumps(lst_new_data))
+
+    results = insert_data.main(list_of_docs_already_present, lst_new_data,
+                               shortcode)  # lst and shortcode to be passed
+    '''
+    with open ("Results3.txt", "w") as file:
+        file.write(str(results))
+    '''
+    if results is not None:
+        ln_lst1 = len(results)
+    else:
+        ln_lst1 = 0
+    noresults = ''
+    if (ln_lst1 != 0):
+        return results
+    else:
+        return noresults
+
+
+
+
+
+

insert_data.py

@@ -0,0 +1,296 @@
+import re
+import ast
+import psycopg
+from datetime import datetime
+import pytz
+import streamlit as st
+regex_pattern = r'^(\"\d+)[\s\S]*?(\"$)'
+
+DB_HOST = st.secrets["DB_HOST"]
+DB_NAME = st.secrets["DB_NAME"]
+DB_USER = st.secrets["DB_USER"]
+DB_PASS = st.secrets["DB_PASS"]
+
+def create_connection():
+    """ create a database connection to the SQLite database
+        specified by db_file
+    :return: Connection object or None
+    """
+    conn = None
+    try:
+        conn = psycopg.connect(dbname=DB_NAME, user=DB_USER, password=DB_PASS, host=DB_HOST)
+    except:
+        print(e)
+
+    return conn
+
+
+def check_for_already_present(dict_of_docs):
+    conn = psycopg.connect(dbname=DB_NAME, user=DB_USER, password=DB_PASS, host=DB_HOST)
+    cur = conn.cursor()
+
+    list_of_docs = list(dict_of_docs.keys())
+
+    try:
+        result = []
+
+        for docid in list_of_docs:
+            sql_for_check = "SELECT Doc_Id FROM stored_results WHERE Doc_Id = %s"
+            cur.execute(sql_for_check, (docid,))
+            fetch_result = cur.fetchone()
+            if fetch_result:
+                result.append(fetch_result[0])  # Append the Doc_Id if found
+
+        # Convert lists to sets for set difference operation
+        set_of_docs = set(list_of_docs)
+        set_of_results = set(result)
+
+        # Calculate the difference
+        list_of_docs_not_present = list(set_of_docs - set_of_results)
+
+        return list_of_docs_not_present
+
+    except psycopg.DatabaseError as error:
+        print(f"Database operation failed: {error}")
+        return None  # or handle error as needed
+
+    finally:
+        cur.close()
+        conn.close()
+
+
+def create_task(conn, task):
+    """
+    Create or replace a task record in both 'tasks' and 'stored_results' tables.
+
+    :param conn: A psycopg2 database connection object
+    :param task: A tuple containing the task data (Doc_ID, Title, Doc_Text, Doc_Blockquotes, Doc_Size)
+    :return: None
+    """
+    sql_task = '''
+    INSERT INTO tasks(Doc_ID, Title, Doc_Text, Doc_Blockquotes, Doc_Size)
+    VALUES (%s, %s, %s, %s, %s)
+    ON CONFLICT (Doc_ID) DO UPDATE SET
+        Title = EXCLUDED.Title,
+        Doc_Text = EXCLUDED.Doc_Text,
+        Doc_Blockquotes = EXCLUDED.Doc_Blockquotes,
+        Doc_Size = EXCLUDED.Doc_Size;
+    '''
+
+    sql_results = '''
+    INSERT INTO stored_results(Doc_ID, Title, Doc_Text, Doc_Blockquotes, Doc_Size)
+    VALUES (%s, %s, %s, %s, %s)
+    ON CONFLICT (Doc_ID) DO UPDATE SET
+        Title = EXCLUDED.Title,
+        Doc_Text = EXCLUDED.Doc_Text,
+        Doc_Blockquotes = EXCLUDED.Doc_Blockquotes,
+        Doc_Size = EXCLUDED.Doc_Size;
+    '''
+
+    try:
+        # Using a context manager to handle the cursor
+        with conn.cursor() as cur:
+            cur.execute(sql_task, task)
+            cur.execute(sql_results, task)
+            conn.commit()
+    except Exception as e:
+        print(f"An error occurred: {e}")
+        conn.rollback()  # Rollback on error
+    finally:
+        # No need to explicitly close the cursor due to the context manager
+        print("Database operation at create_task() completed.")
+
+
+def retrieve_text(conn, query):
+    """
+    Create a new task
+    :param conn:
+    :param task:
+    :return:
+    """
+    
+    sql_query = "SELECT * FROM tasks"
+
+    # Execute the query to fetch rows from the table
+    cursor = conn.cursor()
+    cursor.execute(sql_query)
+
+    # Fetch all rows from the cursor
+    rows = cursor.fetchall()
+
+        # List to store JSON objects of rows with matching columns
+    matching_rows_json = []
+
+    print ("Checking for matching rows")
+
+    for row in rows:
+        has_matching_column = False
+        has_matching_text = False
+        has_matching_indent = False
+        matching_columns = {}
+        title = None
+        doc_id = None
+        matching_text = []
+        matching_text_with_query = []
+        has_matching_indent = False
+        matching_indents = []
+
+        for i, column_value in enumerate(row): #generates pairs of (index, column_value) for each cell in the row 
+           
+            
+            if isinstance(column_value, str) and re.search(regex_pattern, column_value, re.MULTILINE | re.DOTALL):
+                matching_text = []
+                matching_text_with_query = []
+                has_matching_text = True
+                #matching_text_with_query= find_matching_text_with_query(column_value, query)
+                matching_text = find_matching_text(column_value)
+                
+            if i == 1:  # Replace title_column_index with the index of the "Title" column
+                title = column_value
+            elif i == 0:  # Replace doc_id_column_index with the index of the "DocID" column
+                doc_id = column_value
+                
+            elif i == 3:
+                matching_indent_list=ast.literal_eval(column_value)
+                #matching_indent_list = column_value
+                #print("Matching indent list/ list of blockquotes for", title, "is", matching_indent_list)
+                if len(matching_indent_list) == 0:
+                    has_matching_indent = False
+                    #print(title, "has no blockquote")
+                else:
+                    has_matching_indent = True
+                    matching_indents = [value for value in matching_indent_list]
+                    #print("Indents for", title, "is", matching_indents)
+        if has_matching_text or has_matching_indent:
+            row_data = {
+                "Title": title,
+                "DocID": doc_id,
+                "matching_columns": matching_text, #+ matching_text_query, 
+                "matching_indents": matching_indents
+            }
+            matching_rows_json.append(row_data)
+
+    data_dict = matching_rows_json
+    # Convert the list of JSON objects to a JSON array
+    #json_result = json.dumps(matching_rows_json, indent=2)
+    '''
+    df = pd.read_json(json_result)
+
+    data_dict = df.to_dict(orient='list')
+    '''
+    with open("Matching_rows_Format.txt", "w") as file:
+        file.write(str(data_dict))
+
+    print("Generated matching rows and file with matching rows")
+    cursor.close()
+    return data_dict
+
+
+def add_stored_results(conn, lst):
+    """
+    Copies selected documents from 'stored_results' to 'tasks' based on document IDs provided.
+
+    :param conn: Database connection object.
+    :param lst: List of document IDs to transfer.
+    :return: Number of records successfully inserted or None if an error occurred.
+    """
+    sql = '''INSERT INTO tasks (Doc_Id, Title, Doc_Text, Doc_Blockquotes, Doc_Size)
+             SELECT Doc_Id, Title, Doc_Text, Doc_Blockquotes, Doc_Size
+             FROM stored_results
+             WHERE Doc_Id = %s;'''
+
+    try:
+        with conn.cursor() as cur:
+            for docid in lst:
+                cur.execute(sql, (docid,))
+            conn.commit()
+            print("Stored data transferred to tasks.")
+            return cur.rowcount  # Returns the total number of rows affected by the last execute call
+    except Exception as e:
+        print(f"An error occurred: {e}")
+        conn.rollback()  # Rollback on error
+        return None
+    finally:
+        print("Operation - adding stored data completed.")
+
+
+# Example Usage
+# Assume 'conn' is a psycopg2 connection object
+# document_ids = [123, 456, 789]
+# result = add_stored_results(conn, document_ids)
+# if result is not None:
+#     print(f"Transferred {result} records.")
+
+
+def find_matching_text_with_query(column_value, query):
+    matches = re.finditer(regex_pattern, column_value, re.MULTILINE | re.DOTALL)
+    matching_text_with_query = []
+    for match in matches:
+        if query in match.group():
+            matching_text_with_query.append(query)
+    print("Matching text with query is: ", matching_text_with_query)
+    return matching_text_with_query
+
+def find_matching_text(column_value):
+    matching_text = []
+    matches = re.finditer(regex_pattern, column_value, re.MULTILINE | re.DOTALL)
+    for match in matches:
+        matching_text.append(match.group())
+    print("Matching text is: ", matching_text)
+    return matching_text
+
+def delete_sql_records(conn):
+    delete_records = "DELETE FROM tasks"
+
+    cur=conn.cursor()
+    cur.execute(delete_records)
+
+    print("Deleted records")
+
+def add_classified_results(dict_of_results, searchquery):
+    conn = create_connection()
+
+    # SQL query for classified_index table
+    sql_query_classified = '''INSERT INTO classified_index(Doc_Id, Title, searchquery, matching_indents, matching_columns, matching_columns_after_classification, matching_indents_after_classification)
+                   VALUES (%s, %s, %s, %s, %s, %s, %s)'''
+
+    # SQL query for another_table
+    sql_query_search_queries = '''INSERT INTO search_queries(searchquery, dateandtime)
+                                 VALUES (%s, %s)'''
+
+    # Get the current date and time in IST
+    ist = pytz.timezone('Asia/Kolkata')
+    current_datetime_ist = datetime.now(ist).strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S')
+
+    with conn:
+        cur = conn.cursor()
+
+        for result in dict_of_results:
+            cur.execute(sql_query_classified, (result['DocID'], result['Title'], searchquery, result['matching_columns'], result['matching_indents'], result['matching_columns_after_classification'], result['matching_indents_after_classification']))
+
+        # Insert into another_table
+        cur.execute(sql_query_search_queries, (searchquery, current_datetime_ist))
+
+        conn.commit()
+
+
+def main(list_of_docs_already_present, lst_new_data, query): #lst, query to be added as parameters
+    conn = create_connection()
+    with conn:
+        # create tasks from a list
+        delete_sql_records(conn)
+        # Extracting values from each subdictionary
+        values_list = [list(subdict.values()) for subdict in lst_new_data.values()]
+        add_stored_results(conn, list_of_docs_already_present)
+        for task in values_list:
+            create_task(conn, task)
+
+        results=retrieve_text(conn, query)
+
+      
+    return results
+        
+
+
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    main()

pipelineoperation.py

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+from transformers import pipeline
+import streamlit as st
+pipeline = pipeline(task="text-classification", truncation = True, model="sankalps/NonCompete-Test", token = st.secrets["HF_Token"])
+'''
+def pipeline_operations(results):
+    count_result = -1
+    for result in results:
+        count_result += 1
+        matching_columns = result['matching_columns']
+        if len(matching_columns) != 0:
+            for matching_column in matching_columns:
+                contract_or_not = pipeline(matching_column)
+                if contract_or_not == "contractclause":
+                    results[count_result]['matching_columns_after_classification'] = matching_column
+        elif len(matching_columns) == 0:
+            results[count_result]['matching_columns_after_classification'] = ''
+    count_result = -1
+    for result in results:
+        count_result += 1
+        matching_indents = result['matching_indents']
+        if len(matching_indents) != 0:
+            for matching_indent in matching_indents:
+                contract_or_not = pipeline(matching_indent)
+                if contract_or_not == "contractclause":
+                    results[count_result]['matching_indents_after_classification'] = matching_indent
+        else:
+            results[count_result]['matching_indents_after_classification'] = ''
+    return results
+'''
+
+def pipeline_operations(results):
+    for result in results:
+        # Process matching columns
+        matching_columns = result.get('matching_columns', [])
+        classified_columns = [
+            col for col in matching_columns if pipeline(col)[0]['label'] == "contractclause"
+        ]
+        if classified_columns:
+            result['matching_columns_after_classification'] = classified_columns
+        else:
+            result['matching_columns_after_classification'] = []
+
+        # Process matching indents
+        matching_indents = result.get('matching_indents', [])
+        classified_indents = [
+            indent for indent in matching_indents if pipeline(indent)[0]['label'] == "contractclause"
+        ]
+        if classified_indents:
+            result['matching_indents_after_classification'] = classified_indents
+        else:
+            result['matching_indents_after_classification'] = []
+
+    return results

remover.py

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+import re
+
+def remove_text(input_string, start_constant, end_constant):
+    pattern = re.escape(start_constant) + r".*?" + re.escape(end_constant)
+    output_string = re.sub(pattern, '', input_string)
+    return output_string

requirements.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+transformers
+torch
+streamlit
+pandas
+beautifulsoup4
+psycopg