Court : Delhi
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Reserved on:15. th February, 2017 Pronounced on:28th March, 2017 CS (COMM) 132/2016 - IA No.2406/2016 (O.39 R. 1 & 2 CPC), IA No.9070/2016 (O.39 R. 2A CPC), IA No.4277/2016 (O. 39 R. 4 CPC) MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC AND ORS. ..... PLAINTIFFS Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Chander M. Lall, Ms. Bitika Sharma, Ms. Namrita Kochhar, Ms. Deepshikha Malhotra, Mr. Aadarsh Ramanujan and Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocates. Versus NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LIMITED & ORS. ...DEFENDANTS Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra Agarwala and Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Abhai Pandey, Ms. Manisha Singh, Ms. Swati Setia, Mr. Obhan, Mr. Abhishek Saket & Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocates for D-1 to D-3. Mr. Abhishek Saket and Ms. Vijaya Singh, Advocates for D-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER1 The commercial cause, registered as CS(Comm) No.132/2016, in the course of which prayer for ad interim injunction CS (Comm) 132/2016 Page 1 of 96 un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.A. Sharma, J.1. The appellants filed Title Suit No. 82/96 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd., Ranchi, for declaration of their one half share in the undivided properties described in Schedules B and C of the plaint and also for declaration that the sale-deed dated 2-4-1996 executed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 has neither created any right, title and interest in favour of the respondent No. 4 in respect of holding No. 772, nor has it affected in any way the plaintiff's right title and interest in the said holding. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for interim injunction. The trial Court, vide order dated 22-3-1997, granted interim injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 4, their agents, servants and employees from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the property in dispute. Again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(120)ECC225; 2008(156)LC225(SC); 2008(227)ELT177(SC); JT2008(7)SC318; 2008(9)SCALE405
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has dismissed the Writ Petition questioning the validity of the order dated 9th December 1997 issued by the Director General Health Services, New Delhi. The facts of the case are as under:3. The appellant herein, is a private limited company established for the purpose of conducting diagnostic tests and treating patients with specific Andrological problems. On 1st March 1988, a Notification was issued by the Government of India whereby medical equipment imported for specified purposes, was exempted from the payment of customs duty. Taking advantage of the aforesaid Notification, the appellant got sanction to import four machines (though only three were imported) and also furnished the necessary documents to the authorities. Respondent No. 2, the Director, Medical Education submitted a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(2)42
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 10848/2006 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)IA No. 11160/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC BY THE DEFENDANT)IA No. 13971/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)1. The claim of the plaintiff of patent violation by the defendant in respect of moralized packaging film patent of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the patent bearing No. 197823 in respect of the said moralized packaging films in pursuance to a patent granted on 12.04.2006 as per an application of the plaintiff dated 03.03.2004. The patent comprises of 21 claims of which there is a parent claim and there are twenty dependent claims depending directly or indirectly on the parent claim. The description of the invention as per the parent claim is as under:a multilayer, thermo formable, translucent food and pharmaceutical packaging film consisting of a core layer of 100-1000 microns thickness of food ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR2003Guj275; (2003)2GLR926; (2003)2PLR926; [2003]46SCL118(Guj)
M.S. Shah, J.1. Both these appeals have been placed before this Full Bench in view of the order dated 19-6-2002 of a Division Bench of this Court referring the appeals for consideration and decision before the Larger Bench in view of the wide impact of the questions about interpretation of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure and about maintainability of appeal under Sub-section (5) of Section 109 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' or 'the T.M. Act') against the decision made by a learned single Judge of this Court under Sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 109 of the Act.2. O. J. Appeal No. 53 of 1998 is filed against the judgment and order dated 22-6-1998 rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in an appeal under Section 109(2) & (4) of the Act by which the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 22-12-1995 granting the review application filed by Nasik Hing Supplying Co. (the appellant befor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC725; (1998)IMLJ89
ORDERA.R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated December 16, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 283 of 1983. 2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated October 24, 1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I. O.P. No. 26 of 1983. 3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated September 7, 1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Addition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1997)2MLJ228
Srinivasan, J.1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent, as to the maintainability of this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.2. The respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 192 of 1974 and in execution of the same, brought the properties to sale. Sale was held which was sought to be set aside by the appellant herein by an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) read with Section 151 of the Code. The application was dismissed by the Executing Court and on appeal in C.M.A. No. 775 of 1986, a single Judge of this Court affirmed the order of the Executing Court, it is against the said order, the present L.P. Appeal has been filed.3. An objection is raised by the respondent that the C.M.A. filed in this Court was under Section 104, read with Order 43, Rule 1(j) of the Code and therefore, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(2) of the Code, no further appeal will lie from an order passed in the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1998)1MLJ89
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. L.P.A. No. 53 of 1993 was filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (here-inafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 16.12.1991 in C.M.A. No. 554 of 1985 dismissing the appeal filed by the Corporation against the order of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 283 of 1983.2. L.P.A. No. 179 of 1993 was filed by the Proprietor of Madras Type Foundry against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 24.10.1991 in C.M.A. No. 469 of 1984 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in E.S.I.O.P. No. 26 of 1983.3. L.P.A. No. 148 of 1995 was filed by the Corporation against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 7.9.1994 in C.M.A. No. 933 of 1986 dismissing the appeal filed against the order of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. The Appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Board which is now known as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) has filed this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge (Coram: Mrs. R.S. Dalvi, J.) dated 18/3/2009. By the said judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Petition which was filed by the Appellant herein and confirmed the Award dated 18/06/2004 which was given by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. There is a chequered history of litigation between the parties. For the sake of convenience the Appellant shall be hereinafter referred to as MSEB, though now it is known as MSEDCL and the Respondent M/s Datar Switchgear Ltd shall be hereinafter referred to as DSL. The matter travelled to the Apex Court on more than couple of occasions. Criminal complaints were filed by D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:06. h May, 2019 CS(COMM) 1169/2018 & I.As. 13934/2018, 15885/2018 EISAI CO. LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr.Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pravin Anand, Ms.Archana Sanker, Mr.Dhruv Anand, Ms.Vidisha Garg, Ms.Udita Patro and Mr.Nischay Mall, Advocates for plaintiffs versus SATISH REDDY & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Saikrishna Rajagopal, Ms.Sneha Jain, Mr.Devvrat Joshi, Mr.Amitavo Mitra and Ms.Garima Sawhney, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA I.A. 13934/2018 JUDGMENT1 The plaintiffs have instituted this suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting or offering for sale of any product that infringes the plaintiffs patent No.215528 including Lorcaserin or any of its pharmaceutically acceptable salts including Lorcaserin Hydrochloride (hereinafter referred to as LH) and Lorcaserin Hydrochloride Hemihydrate (hereinafter re...
Tag this Judgment!