Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present petition, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction, has been moved by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. The plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing Patent No. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. It is alleged that the invention was conceptualized visualized by the plaintiff/petitioners in the year 1999. The application for grant of patent was moved on 24.5.2002 and the patent, after making all the necessary inquiries and observance of the procedure, prescribed under the Patents Act and the rules framed thereunder, was granted on 11.7.2005. The patented device is an improvement over a local product known as 'Kilta' mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(5)BomCR567; (2002)3BOMLR459; 2002(3)MhLj592
C.K. Thakker, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against an Order passed by the learned Single Judge dated February 1, 2002 in Arbitration Application No. 15 of 2001 making appointment of an Arbitrator.2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Jamdar, a retired Judge of this Court, as an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes and differences between the parties, in the place of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Deshmukh, a retired Chief Justice of this Court.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain orders passed under the Act were made appealable only under Section 39 of the Act. Section 39 read thus :'39. Appealable orders. -- An appeal shall lie from the following orderspassed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised bylaw to hear appeals from original decrees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1968AP228
Kumarayya, J.1. The office has raised an objection as regards the maintainability of this L.P.A. for want of leave of the Court as contemplated by Clause 15 of the Letters Patent on the ground that the order appealed against was passed in C.M. Ps. in Second Appeal and, therefore, the question whether the party has an unqualified statutory right of appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act was therefore of little moment. It would appear from the facts of the case that in the course of Second Appeal 203 of 1962, the parties agreed that the subject matter of dispute may be referred to the Arbitrators. At their request this Court directed the dispute to be submitted to the Arbitrators for decision. The Arbitrator passed an award and remitted the same to the Court. The appellant herein raised objection thereto and requested the Court to set aside the award. The Court heard the arguments and finally passed an order refusing to set aside the award and directed that a decree be drawn in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)ALD621; 2001(4)ALT558
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. This letters patent appeal arises out of a common order dated 25-10-2000 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in OP No.2 of 1997 and OP No.4 of 1998. The present LPA relates to OP No.2 of 1997.2, When this appeal is taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised before us by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent-contractor as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as against the order passed by the learned single Judge. Since the question as to the maintainability of this letters patent appeal has to be resolved by us as a preliminary issue, without going into the merits of the other contentions, we proceed to decide this issue as a preliminary issue.3. The first respondent-contractor has been assigned the work of construction of civil engineering of Blast Furnace Group II Zone in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. However, certain disputes arose between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2000Guj139; (2000)1GLR920
J.N. Bhatt, J. 1. What is in 'focus :-The main question, in the focus, which, revolves, round, for determination and decision, in this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), is, 'Whether, an appeal would lie under Clause 15, of the Letters Patent Appeal of the Bombay High Court, applicable to the Gujarat High Court, to a Division Bench of this Court, from the judgment of a Single Judge, of this Court, recorded and rendered in exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction arising out of 'Appeals from Orders' involv-ing and warranting analysis, interpretation of, and applicability of the provisions' : (i) Clauses 15 and 44 of LPA of Bombay Applicable to Gujarat (ii) Sections 100-A 102(2), Section 104(1) & (2) 105,106 107 and 109 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and (iii) Order 43, Rule 1 (r) and Order 45, Rule 3 of the CPC and (iv) Article 133(1) and (2) and Article 134-A and Article 147 of the Constitution of India. 2. The appeal, before the learned Single Judge, came to be filed, against the Interlocutory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1986MP165; 1986MPLJ261
J.S. Verma, Ag. C. J. 1. The only question for decision by us is whether an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is tenable against an interlocutory order passed in an election petition by a single Judge which amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of that expression used in Clause 10. This question has to be answered on the assumption that the . right of appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent subsists notwithstanding the enactment of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Letters Patent Appeals Samapti) Adhiniyam (29 of 1981) abolishing the right of such appeals since this enactment has been held to be constitutionally invalid by a Full Bench of this Court in Balkrishna Dass v. Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd. AIR 1985 Madh Pra 42. In case it is held that such an appeal is tenable, the appeal has to be heard and decided on merits by a Division Bench which will also decide whether the impugned interlocutory order passed in the election petition amounts to a 'judgment' within the meaning of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC540; [1957]1SCR488
Das, C.J. 1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from the judgment passed on February 10, 1955, by the High Court of Andhra. The suit out of which this application arises was instituted on April 22, 1949, in the sub-court of Bapatla, which was then within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court. The judgment of the trial Court was passed on November 14, 1950, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff appealed. On October 1, 1953, the Andhra State was formed and a new High Court was established under s. 28 of The Andhra State Act, 1953 (Act XXX of 1953), and apparently the appeal stood transferred to the High Court of Andhra under the provisions of s. 38 of the same Act. On March 4, 1955, the High Court of Andhra accepted the appeal, reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. The application for leave to appeal to this Court was dismissal on the ground, inter alia, that the value of the property was only Rs. 11,400 and did not come up to the amount of Rs. 20,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 73(1998)DLT732
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy, J.1. The plaintiffs claiming to be engaged in the sale of suit cases all over the globe have instituted the suit against the defendants stating that the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's copyright in drawings; the defendants are passing off their goods and they are imitating the trade dress in making the suit cases to sell their products. The defendants resist the case of the plaintiffs on various grounds. In view of the fact that the parties relied heavily on their respective pleadings to project their respective contentions and the arguments covered a very wide canvass, it has become necessary for me to refer to the pleadings in the first instance and then to deal with the rival contentions put forth at the time of the arguments and the precedents referred to by the learned counsel for the parties.2. The case of the plaintiffs could be recounted in the following terms. The first plaintiff Samsonite Corporation is a Company operating under the State of Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 148(2008)DLT198; 2008(102)DRJ106; LC2008(2)1; 2008(36)PTC568(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The present matter is concerned with a claim of infringement of the patent of the plaintiff in respect of 'a device for detection of antibodies to HepatIT is C Virus (for short, HCV) in human serum and plasma'. The early detection of HCV is stated to be critical as there is no vaccine for the same.2. The plaintiff is stated to be a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture and sale of diagnostic kits and is also stated to be a holder of various patents, designs and trademarks in respect of its products. The plaintiff's application (I.A. No. 11883 of 2006) under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Code') is for the issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's Patent No. 194638 dated 22nd September, 2006 in a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages.3. The plaintiff further claims to be a pioneer company enjoying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!