Advanced Search Results

Bajaj Auto Ltd., State of Maharashtra Rep. by S. Ravikumar Vs. Tvs Mot ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Intellectual Property Rights

Acts : Patents Act, 1970 - Sections 2, 10, 11, 11(2), 11(3), 11B(1), 11B(3), 12, 12(1), 13, 13(1), 13(4), 25, 26(1), 43, 47, 48, 53(1), 64, 104A, 105, 106 and 108; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Sections 48; Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005; Motor Vehicles Act; Patents Act, 1949; Patents and Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 12; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 39, Rules 1 and 2; Designs Act, 1911 - Sections 2(8), 26(1), 51 and 53

Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)

the patentee was having, an exclusive right to use the patented product, whereas, after the amendment, as per Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, it gives an exclusive right to the patentee to prevent the third parties … about infringement, they are entitled to be protected by their patents against competition by the defendants until those patents expire. They are struggling to establish … this stage of interim application, while considering the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 38 of 2002), which has come into effect from 20.05.2003 and Amendment Act 2005, which came … P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the defendant in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007.2. C.S. No. 1111

Mahindra Electric Mobility Limited and Anr. Vs.cci and Anr.

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

one advisory and regulatory, and the other adjudicatory; and an appellate body following up the adjudicatory body. The Competition Amendment Act, 2007 was passed on a complete misreading of Braham Dutt (supra). The adjudicatory function of the CCI remained unchanged, … provisions” hereafter) of the Act and the notification dated 31.03.2011 amending Regulation 48 (1) of the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009 (hereafter “the … challenge various provisions of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereafter “the Act”). The specific challenge is to provisions of Sections 22(3), 27(b), 53A, 53B, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F and 61 (“the impugned provisions” hereafter) of the Act and

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) Vs. Competition Commission of I ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

of provisions came into force on 31st March, 2003. The Competition Act has been subsequently amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 and the Competition (Amendment) Act, 2009. 114. The Preamble of the Competition Act reads as under:- "An Act … of and responsible for the conduct of Ericsson so as to fix the responsibility of such persons under Section 48 of the Competition Act. The substratal dispute between Ericsson and Micromax/Intex relate to Ericsson's demand for royalty in

Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

of its turnover for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher. (c) Omitted by Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007 (d) direct that the agreements shall stand modified to the extent and in the manner as may be … or demand of goods or services are distinctly homogenous and can be 48 distinguished from the conditions prevailing in the neighbouring areas; 2(t) “relevant product … does not deal with a company like the appellant. In other words, while there may be indication in Section 19(4)(g) of the Act that the fact that a body is a monopoly under the statute may indicate

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Private Ltd & Anr. Vs.competition ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : MRTP

as the Commission may pass and comply with the directions, including payment of costs, if any; [Omitted by Competition (Amendment) Act, 2007]. (g) pass such other 45[order or issue such directions]. as it may deem fit. 46[Provided that while passing … raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge with respect to the scope, ambit and applicability of Section 48 of the Companies Act, 2002 were never raised before and / or dealt by the Division Bench in

Magotteaux Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Aia Engineering Ltd.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Civil

Acts : Delhi High Court Act, 1966 - Sections 10 and 10(1); Patent Act, 1970 - Sections 48; Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Trademark Act of 1946; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 2, 2(2), 10, 80, 104, 104A, 105, 106, 139 and 151 - Order 10, Rule 2 - Order 39, Rules 1 to 4 and 10 - Order 43, Rule 1

Reported in : 155(2008)DLT73; 2009(39)PTC212(Del)

with in addition to any other provision of law, as provided in this Section (A) Unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles...the threat or effect of which is - (i) to destroy … Sat Jit Singh : (1984)1SCC358 . That was a case where an amendment to the written statement was sought and allowed at the time of … Service Pvt. Ltd v. India Broadcast Live LLC and Ors. reported in 2007 (35) PTC 177. The said order itself was passed under Order 39 … Patents Act, 1970. Appellants No. 2 and 3's complaint No. 2609 Under Section 337, (US) Tariff Act, 1930 Section 48. Rights of Patentees - A patent granted under this act shall confer upon the patentee (a) where the

Rajeev Suri Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

administrative orders or executive instructions without any statutory backing.14. It has been argued before us that formulation or amendment/ modification of a city’s Master Plan is not an administrative but a legislative exercise. Relying on the decisions … (1987) 2 SCC72017 (2004) 10 SC796Transfer Case (C) No.229 of 2020 Page 48 of 179 1979 is neither the function nor forte of the court … quasi legislative or statutory exercise is mandated by law, has different implications, for example under the Environment Protection Act. This aspect would be considered subsequently.10. In Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sale … Authority of India and Others,20the dictum in Cynamide India Ltd. was followed. Section 11(4) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, it was

Rojer Mathew Vs. South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors Chief Manager

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

methods to regulate anti- competitive practices. This Committee recommended establishment of the Competition Commission of India (CCI), which was envisioned to maintain adequate competition in … tax law, company law or environment law, etc. LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBUNALISATION :38. In India, the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 paved way for tribunalisation of the justice dispensation system by introduction of Articles 323A and 323B in … From Hewart to Leggatt” 28 TRAS51(2009) 6 Excerpts from the ‘Explanatory Notes to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act, 2007’ prepared by the Ministry of Justice, British Parliament. 10 II. Canada 23. The Tribunal system in Canada, although … the domain of the Courts; 23 [2005]. UKHL56 48 statutory interpretation being a judicial exercise, regardless of … petitioner had originally approached the High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 13 (5- A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Adani Gas Limited Vs. Union Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

There are other functions too, including regulating access to common or contract carriers to ensure fair trade and competition among the entities, specifying the pipe- line access code regulating transportation rates for common or contract carriers and … and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Levy of Fee and Other Charges) Regulations, 2007. (2) The Board may suo-motu invite bids from entities interested in laying, … obtain an authorization under the Act, except for the pipelines or networks already authorized by the Central Government. Section 48 of the PNGRB Act criminalized the construction or operation of pipelines without obtaining authorization.42. It was urged on … either reject or accept an application made to it, subject to such amendments or conditions, if any, as it may think fit. (5) In the

Apm Terminals B.V. Vs Union of India and anr ,

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act; Major Port Trusts Act - Sections 111, 42(3); Indian Ports Act; Electricity Act - Sections 178, 79(1)(j)

the effect of altering the policy with regard to entrustment of operational facilities at the port to provide competition and to prevent monopolies, the provisions of Clause 8.31 would have to be reconsidered in the light of … despite the prevailing concessional rates granted to a consumer under an agreement, upon holding that only a legislative amendment could override a contractual right by specifically overriding the contractual terms. Ms. Chidambaram also referred to the decision … accordance with the policy indicated in Circular No. PD-12013/2/2005-JNPT dated 26th September, 2007, issued by the Union of India. The further prayer of the appellant … the stand that since P&O; Ports was controlling 48% of the Container traffic in India and was … and style of "Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd." registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The said Joint Venture Company, hereinafter referred to as the "GTI", … be superseded by a general policy decision under Section 111 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963,