Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1997Bom279; 1997(2)BomCR30; 1997(1)MhLj327
ORDERDr. B. P. Saraf, J. 1. This is an appeal from the order of the learned single Judge rejecting the application of the appellants under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the 'Act') for extending the time for making the award. 2. When this appeal was taken up for hearing Mr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of this appeal. It was contended that no a appeal lies against an order under Section 28 of the Act refusing to enlarge the time for making an award. Our attention was drawn to Section 39 of the Act, which provides for appeal, to show that an order under Section 28 refusing to enlarge time for making the award is not included in the list of appealable orders set out in sub-section (i) thereof. It was submitted that appeal lies under Section 39(i) of the Act only from the orders specified therein and 'from no others'. It was also submitted that no appeal lies from the impugned order eve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course. 2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom229; (1952)54BOMLR94; ILR1952Bom570
Bavdekar, J. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Shah J., on appeal from an order refusing to sat aside an award. It is necessary to stale the facts, because a preliminary point has been taken before us that Shah J. having dismissed the appeal, no appeal lies now under the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of this Court.[2] Now, an appeal lies to a Division Bench of this Court from a judgment of a single Judge under the Letters Patent; but it is contended on behalf of the respondents that this right of appeal given by the Letters Patent is taken away by the provisions of Section 39, Arbitration Act. That section provides: 'An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to bear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order : An order: (i) superseding an arbitration ;(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case ;(in) modifying or correcting an award ;(iv) filing or refusing to file an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
(For convenience, the various sections in the official copy of this judgment begin on new pages, and portions of some section-ending pages may therefore be blank. This is deliberate and is to be ignored.) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................4 CHRONOLOGY.......................................................................................8 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS....................................................... 18 CTR™S PATENT....................................................................................24 THE DTL TENDER SPECIFICATIONS ............................................32 CTR™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING.................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent No.231479 dated 04.03.2009 vide Patent Application No.96/MUM/2005 evidenced by AnnexureU to the petition and the order dated 03.06.2009 (AnnexureZ to the petition).2 The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing, distributing, marketing and exporting pharmaceutical products particularly active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished dosage forms.3 The Respondent No.1 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause title. It filed the above Patent Application which has been allowed by the authorities, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this Writ Petition.4 It is stated that on 01.02.2005 the Respondent No.1 filed a patent applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1936Bom201; (1937)39BOMLR332
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows : Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in the price of the properties sold, Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
GENERAL 1. These are four Notices of Motion under Order 39 Rule 2A and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ). All are filed by the Plaintiff ( CTR ), alleging that the Defendant ( Sergi ) is in repeated and contumacious breach of restraint orders passed in CTR s patent infringement suit. This common judgment disposes of all four Notices of Motion. 2. I heard Mr. Seervai for CTR and Mr. Chagla for Sergi at some length. They took me through this record; no easy task, I might add, for not only do the Notices of Motion overlap, but they are also tied hand and foot to, and share a history with, CTR s principal Notice of Motion No. 497 of 2014 for injunctive relief. That Notice of Motion is now separated from this group, since I decided it by a judgment dated 23rd October 2015. There, I held for CTR and against Sergi on the issue of infringement of CTR s patent, one that relates to an explosion and fire detection technology for use in electrical transformers. Sergi is in appeal. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR1194
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon : (1912)14BOMLR833 . Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1913)ILR37Bom506
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon 1912 40 Cal 21. Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, however, to es...
Tag this Judgment!