Garware-wall Ropes Ltd. Vs. A.i. Chopra Engineers and Contr. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 438: [tarun chatterjee & j.m. panchal,jj] grant of anticipatory bail applicant was the ex-vice chairman of bank charged of financial irregularities aged 70 years, suffering from lumbar canal stenosis with severed osteoarthritis below knee and deformities at knee, sustained fracture of ankle for which he was operated and metal implants fixed in his body, heavy diabetic on oral anti-diabetic drugs and has hypoesthesia, severely obese and not able to do his activities of daily living without at least two assistants, bed ridden bail granted with a condition to deposit rs.40 lacs with bank in liquidation. orders.h. kapadia and b. sudershan reddy, jj.1. leave granted.2. this civil appeal is filed by the original plaintiff against the order dated, 19th december, 2007 passed by the bombay high court (nagpur bench) in a.o. no. 83/2007.3. the appellant had filed a suit for a declaration that respondent herein is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in its favour as gswr and spiral lock systems bearing patent nos. 196240 and 201177.4. in the entire dispute, the main point which arises for determination is whether the product patented as gswr and spiral lock systems are allegedly in use and, in fact, being used for more than two decades. this aspect is crucial in the matter of injunction at the interlocutory stage. this aspect has not been gone into by the high court. in our view, the issue goes to the root of the matter at least on the question of grant or refusal of injunction. the matter is pending before the trial court even today. but the urgency is that the respondent herein would suffer grave prejudice if injunction was to be granted as he would like to offer a bid to the railways. the appellant is his competitor. since, this aspect has not been gone into by the high court in its impugned judgment, we hereby set aside the impugned judgment and we request the high court to decide the said a.o. no. 83/2007 afresh in accordance with law, including the question of the scope and effect of section 100 of the patents act, 1970. all contentions in this regard are expressly kept open.5. interim order, dated, 13th may, 2008 passed by this court will continue to operate for three weeks from today. in the meantime, the appellant herein may take such steps as it may be advised for seeking interim relief on expiry of the said period of three weeks. civil appeal is disposed of accordingly.6. no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is filed by the original Plaintiff against the Order dated, 19th December, 2007 passed by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in A.O. No. 83/2007.

3. The Appellant had filed a Suit for a declaration that Respondent herein is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in its favour as GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177.

4. In the entire dispute, the main point which arises for determination is whether the product patented as GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems are allegedly in use and, in fact, being used for more than two decades. This aspect is crucial in the matter of injunction at the interlocutory stage. This aspect has not been gone into by the High Court. In our view, the issue goes to the root of the matter at least on the question of grant or refusal of injunction. The matter is pending before the Trial Court even today. But the urgency is that the Respondent herein would suffer grave prejudice if injunction was to be granted as he would like to offer a bid to the railways. The Appellant is his competitor. Since, this aspect has not been gone into by the High Court in its impugned Judgment, we hereby set aside the impugned Judgment and we request the High Court to decide the said A.O. No. 83/2007 afresh in accordance with law, including the question of the scope and effect of Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970. All contentions in this regard are expressly kept open.

5. Interim Order, dated, 13th May, 2008 passed by this Court will continue to operate for three weeks from today. In the meantime, the Appellant herein may take such steps as it may be advised for seeking interim relief on expiry of the said period of three weeks. Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

6. No order as to costs.