Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

United Phosphorus Limited Vs. Ajay Garg and Another

Decided On : May-28-2015

Court : Delhi

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]

LAW: Order I Rule 10(2, the Code of Civil Procedure, Order VII Rules, Order VII Rule 10 &11, Section 20(c, the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 20, Section 20, Section 20(c, Order 7 Rule 10 & 11, Order 7 Rule 10 & 11, Order 7 Rule 10, Order VII, Section 48, the Patents Act, Section 151 CPC, Section 20(C, the Division Bench, Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Order I Rule 10

CARDINAL: 49, 1, Two, two, 15, 31.3.2013, two, 15, 2, two, 42, 27, 58:“27, three, 27.11.2013, 15, 32, 17, 18, 20, 28, 29, 3, 19, No.2, 32, 33, three, 10, 31, 41, two, 143, One, 28, 28, 1, ten, 3, 3, 9, 9, six, three, 3, 21.1.2014, 21.1.2014, 1-10 51, 10, 09.12.2013, 09.12.2013, 52, 32, 44, 17, 57, 19, 20, 212/2008, 3, 30, 75, two, 4, 830, One, 1940.53, 12.12.2011, 65, 1, 7, 9, two, 66

GPE: NEW DELHI +, CS(OS, no.3, New Delhi, no.4, India, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Mumbai, Gujarat, Delhi, misleading.12, Gujarat, Gujarat, Delhi, Delhi, India, Mumbai, Delhi, Delhi, Gujarat, India, Bombay, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, North Zone, India, Delhi.22, India, India, California, Ohio, Ohio, Ohio, India, Delhi, India, India, India, India, India, Los Angeles, India, India, India, India, Delhi, Casio, overruled.39, Casio, India, Casio, India, India, Toys, Us, Delhi, Gujarat, Gujarat, Delhi, Gujarat, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, under:“15, Delhi, Delhi, India, India, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, China, Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, India, India, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, India, Delhi, India, Delhi, Delhi, Gujarat, Gujarat, Mumbai, Delhi, India, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi.38, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Gujarat, Mumbai, Delhi, Defendant No.2, Delhi, Delhi, India, Delhi, Gujarat, Gujarat, Defendants Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, Sarigam, India, New Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, US, US, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, India, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Rohini, Delhi, CS(OS, India, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, North Zone, Delhi, Gujarat, Delhi, Delhi, Delhi, J.F.Letoille, India, Delhi, C.S, Delhi, Switzerland, U.S.A., Ahmedabad, Gujarat, Delhi

DATE: 2405/2013, 28th May, 2015, 202013, annual, the year 2012-2013, annual, the year, the year ended 31.3.2012.8, Coromandel‟s, the 1st, 190746, 202013, 2010, 36 to 45, 57, 36, 46, 47, the day to day, April 2014, 16th June 2014, 20th June 2014, 27th June 2014, 14th July 2014, 16, 17, 18, 20, 28, 31, the Defendant No.2, 2004, 2012, 35, 18.2.1998, 29, around early November 2013, 190476, 45, 28, 2013, 2013, one week, 8th May 2014, November 2013, 202013, ten days, ten days, 396155, four weeks, 49, 03.12.2013, the same day, 2008, 58, about 35 years, 2405/2013 1, the first week of November 2013, 36 3, 2013, 50 to 54, 1940, 2009, 2011, 2011, 1981, a period of, two weeks, a period of, two weeks, today, 2015

ORG: UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED, no.2, J I.A.13409/2014 & I.A.1372/2014, Plaintiff, Indian Patent Nos.190476, etc.2, I.A.1372/2014, no.2, CPC, Coramandel International Limited, Coramandel, Sansad Marg, Connaught Place, DVA, Paraguay, Coramandel, no.2, no.2, no.2, Coramandel, Paraguay, Coramandel, no.2, no.2, Coramandel International Limited, no.2, Reliance, Coramandel, Sabero, no.2, Reliance, Coramandel, Reliance, Sabero, Coramandel, Reliance, Sabero Organic Gujarat Limited, no.2, Coramandel, Coramandel, Coramandel, Coramandel, Coramandel, Paraguay, Paraguay, Coramandel, Coramandel, no.2, no.2, Plaintiff, Hon'ble Court, Coromandel, Acephate, Coromandel, Defendant and Coromandel, this Hon'ble Court, Coromandel, Plaintiff, Coromandel, Plaintiff, Coromandel, Plaintiff, Acephate, SG, Coromandel, no.2, Court, Court, no.2, Court, Plaintiff, no.2, Acephate, SG, Acephate, SG, Plaintiff, no.2, Acephate, SG, Plaintiff, no.2, Plaintiff, Court, Plaintiff, no.2, no.2, no.2, no.2, Coramandel, Acephate, Acephate, Coramandel, no.2, Coramandel, Acephate, Coramandel, no.2, no.2, no.2, Acephate, no.2, Acephate, SG, no.2, no.2, Acephate, Court, Reliance, Banyan Tree Holding, Plaintiff, Defendant, Cybersell, CyberSell Inc., Panavision International LP, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Court, Court, State, India TV, Court, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Court, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, disputes.43, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, CPC, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, State, State, Cybersell, Plaintiff, CPC, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, the Government of Gujarat, the Government of Delhi.24, no.2, Court, Coromandel, Coromandel International Limited, Coromandel International Ltd, the Board of Directors, the Stock Exchange, Coromandel International Ltd, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat High Court, the High Courts, CPC, Acephate, Acephate, CPC, Coramandel International Ltd., Plaintiff, Plaintiff, SG, Defendants, SG, Court, Connaught Place, Defendant no.1, Defendants, no.2, no.2, Acephate, Acephate, Coromandel, Connaught Place, Coromandel, Reliance, Court, the Delhi High Court, Court, the Apex Court, Bristol Myers Squibb, Reliance, L.G. Electronics, no.2, CPC, no.2, no.2, no.2, Acephate, no.2, no.2, no.2, no.2, CPC, no.2, Coromandel International Limited, no.2, Coromandel, Reliance, Court, no.2, no.2, no.2, no.2, no.2, no.2, no.2, Court, Connaught Place, no.2, Court, no.2, no.2, no.2, Bar, no.2, Acephate, Coromandel, Coromandel, Acephate, Acephate, Coromandel, no.2, Acephate, Coromandel, no.2, Coromandel, Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd., Acephate, Acephate, No.202013, Acephate, no.2, Acephate, Connaught Place, no.2, Connaught Place, IA No.19630, No.2405 of 2013 & IA, the Plaintiff u/Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Plaintiff, Sabero Organic Gujarat Limited, Connaught Place, Defendants, Court, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Defendants, IA No.19629 of 2013, CPC, Plaintiff, Court, Defendants, No.9968265007, Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited, Plot No.2012, GIDC, District Valsad Gujarat, SG, Defendants, Defendants, no.1, no.2, Court, Connaught Place, Connaught Place, Organics Gujarat Ltd., Plot No.2012, GIDC, Connaught Place, E.I.D. Parry India Limited, Delhi Office, E.I.D. Parry India Limited, no.2, no.2, Banyan Tree Holding, Court, State, Court, CPC, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, no.2, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. & Ors, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, FAO(OS, Ajay Garg, no.2, Acephate, the Sabero Organic Gujarat Limited, Sabero Organic Gujarat Limited, Connaught Place, Sabero Organic Gujarat Limited, Connaught Place, no.2, Plaintiff, Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd., Sabero Organics, Connaught, Marilyn Simons, Sabero, SP, Acephate, no.2, Acephate, no.2, no.2, no.2, Acephate, no.2, Acephate, Ajay Garg, no.2, no.2, Connaught Place, no.2, Acephate, Court, no.2, no.2, Connaught Place, Local, no.2, no.2, Connaught Place the Local Commissioner, Reliance, no.2, Court, no.2, under:“50, Chennai, the High Court, Natco Pharma Limited, the High Court, Court, Chennai, Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing & Processing Corporation Ltd, Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, Mohan Meakin Breweries Limited, Court, Mohan Meakin Limited, the State Government, Agriculture (Pesticide, Gujarat State, Acephate, no.2, no.2, Banyan Tree Holding, Court, Court, Court, Court, Court, no.2, Coromandel, CPC, Court

PERSON: C.M. Lal, Nancy, Rajeshwari H., Aparna, Pratibha M. Singh, Sushant Singh, Subha Shiny, P.C. Arya, Lall, Lall, Pratibha M. Singh, Lal, Singh, I.A.1372/2014, plaint.13, Singh, Singh, Ajay Garg, Singh, Singh, Coramendel, Defendant, Defendant, jurisdiction.47, Singh, Lall, Lall, Lal, Defendant No.2, Defendant No.2, Defendant no.2, Hitherto, Lal, Lal, Ajay Garg, Lal, Lal, Exphar v. Eupharma Lab, Dhodha House, S.K. Maingi, Bhog Lal Patel, DHC, Ajay Garg, no.1, no.1, Lal, no.1, Ajay Garg, Rajiv Nayar, Zulfikar Khan Rana, Rana, Garg, Defendant No.2, Ajay Garg, Nayar, Order XXXIX Rule, Tushar Kanti Pandey, no.186334, Order XXXIX Rule, under:“2, Nam Joshi, Floor, Jeevandeep Building, Sansad Marg, Anil Garg, Jeevandeep Building, Valsad Gujarat, Jeevandeep Building, Lal, Natco Pharma, Rana Steels Vs, Ajay Garg, no.1, Zulfikar Khan Rana, Ajay Garg, Ajay Garg, Ajay Garg, Zulfikar Khan Rana, I. Zulfikar Khan Rana, Yamin Khan Rana, Ajay Garg, Ajay Garg, Ajay, Ajay Jain, Ajay Jain, Ajay Garg, no.1, F. Hoffman La Roche Vs Intas Biopharmaceuticals Ltd, Vitman Pharma, Anna Salai, Vitman Pharma, Vitman Pharma, link.52, Natco Pharma Limited, Kanya Kumari, Gandhi Nagar, Lall

WORK_OF_ART: Coramandel, II Floor

NORP: Northern, Hon'ble, Indians, Indians, Indian, Indian, Indian, Bharat, no.2, Indian, no.2, Indian

PERCENT: 42.22%, 75%, 97 %, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 75%, 75%, 97%, 97%, 75%, 97%, 97%, 75%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 75%, 97%, 75%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 75% and, 97%, 75%, 97%, 97%, 75%, 75%, 75%, 97%, 75%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 97%, 37 PTC24(Del, 97%, 97%, 75%, 75%, 97%, 75%, 97%, 97%

LOC: Northern Part, Plaintiff, Single Judge, North India, the North Zone, North India, the Northern Zone, the Northern Zone, Northern Zone‟s, the Northern Zone, the North Zone

ORDINAL: 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, second, first, third, first, Secondly, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, firstly, firstly, third, first, 25th, third, first, second, first, 4th, firstly

PRODUCT: Acephate, no.1, Defendant No.2, SCC688, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, no.1, Para 2, no.1, no.1, no.1, Suresh Nair, no.1, no.1, no.1, Para 45

FAC: Teva v Natco

View Full Judgment


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //