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 : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT774
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 266-A/2001.2. At the outset, Mr. Madan Bhatia, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of present appeal on the ground that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 appeals were maintainable only against the orders mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 39(1). Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 39. Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear 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; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these cases, questions of law referred to be decided by the Full Bench are:(i) Whether an appeal will lie against the order of a single Judge passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(ii) When such proceedings are under consideration can the learned single Judge pass interim orders; and(iii) If interim orders are passed by the single Judge, whether appeals to the Division Bench can be filed from such interim orders.2. No appeal is specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') against orders passed under Section 24. There is also no specific prohibition in CPC against filing of an appeal against such an order. Therefore, appeal can be filed if it is provided under any other law as right of appeal is a creature of Statute. Sections 104 and 105 of CPC prohibit filing of appeals except by express provision in the CPC or any other law. Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for appeal from the judgment or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 04.2016 Pronounced on:23. 12.2016 FAO(OS) 540/2011, C.M. APPL.20174/2011, 13919 & 17996/2015 MYSPACE INC. ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Rajendra Kumar, Sh. Prashant Gupta and Sh. Kanishk Kumar, Advocate. Versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neel Mason, Sh. Ankit Relan, Sh. Harsh Kaushik, Sh. Vinay. P. Tripathi, Ms Ridhima Pabbi, Ms. Rashi Punia and Sh. Sameer Rohatgi, Advocates. Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar and Ms. Tanya Verma, Advocates, for intervener. Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate, for Intervener/Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. is a defendants This interlocutory appeal in C.S(OS) 2682/2008 (the suit)wherein the order, on application by the plaintiff(Super Cassettes or SCIL)for interim injunction was granted and the appellant (MySpace) was restrained from hosting o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on:10. h March, 2015 Judgment Delivered on:30. h April, 2015 % + FAO(OS) 82/2015 VLS FINANCE LTD ..... APPELLANT VERSUS SOUTHEND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD & ANR ..... RESPONDENTS Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi, Mr. Samit Khosla, Mr. Chetan Sharma and Mr. Ashok Kr. Sharma, Advocates. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Matta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mohit Auluck, Ms Manjula Baxla and Mr. Raghav, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay K. Sondhi, Mr. Venancio D Costa, Mr. Ashish Kr. Singh and Mr. Harshed Pathak, Advocates for respondent No.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J1 The controversy as of now that has arisen is whether from the impugned order an intra court appeal would lie under section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H141
Falshaw, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. The respondent Prithi Raj claims to be a displaced per. son from Lahore now residing at Delhi where he carries on the business of a building contractor. In 1949 he entered into a contract with the negistered society known as the Jamia Millia Islamia for the construction of a Teachers' Training Institute Hostel and according to his allegations completed the building in July 1951.He claimed that allowing for payments made by the Society and the material supplied by it a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- was still due to him and he therefore filed a petition before a Tribunal constituted under Act LXX of 1951 under Section 13 of that Act which deals with the claims by displaced creditors against persons who are not displaced debtors.The claim was resisted by the Society which denied that the subject-matter of the claim was a debt within the meaning of the Act, and also applied for the stay of proceedings before the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H277
Shamsher Bahadur, J.1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a preliminary objection has been raised that such an appeal does not lie from the order of the learned Single Judge (D.K. Mahajan J.) who on 11th of April, 1967, partially allowed the appeal preferred from the order of Shri Gyani as a Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19392. A transport vehicle carrying passengers and belonging to the appellant, the Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co., (P) Ltd struck two boys. Pardeep Kumar and Devinder Singh, riding on a bicycle on 27th April 1962. One of the two boys. Pardeep Kumar received serious injuries resulting in amputation of one leg and damage to the foot of the other side The father of Pardeep Kumar claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed damages to him to the extent of Rs. 7000/- Devinder Singh was awarded a sum of only Rs 700. These damages were payable by the appellant, which is the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. O.S.A. No. 91 of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant as against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1272 of 2007 in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, in and by which, the Appellant's application for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent herein from in any way interfering with the manufacturing and marketing of the Appellant's products using Internal Combustion (IC) engine with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs pending the disposal of C.S. No. 979 of 2007 was rejected.2. O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008 has also been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1357 of 2007, in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007, wherein, the Respondent's prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant herein from in any manner infringing the Respondent's Patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said Patent No. 195904 and/or from manufacturing, marketing etc., for sale or exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.224/2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section 117 D of the Patents Act 1970 ( herein after referred to as the Act) for revoking the patent No. 201910 dated 5.12.2003 granted to the respondent a German citizen. 2. The impugned Patent was filed on 5.12.2003 having the priority date 7.6.2001 and the Patent was granted on 23.02.2007 by the Patent Office after due examination of the Patent application having the title Method for controlling a wind turbine and a wind turbine. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, a subsidiary of ENERCON GmbH. Germany applied for the revocation of the Patent on the following grounds. a. The subject matter of the Patent stands anticipated (section 64 (1) e); b. The subject matter of the Patent is obvious and does not involve any inventive step [Section 64 (1)( f)]; c. The claimed subject is not an invention as per section 3 (k) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
ORDER (No.223/2010) S. Chandrasekaran, Technical Member 1. This is an original application for revocation filed under section 64 read with section 117 D of the Patents Act, 1970 (herein after referred to as the Act) for revoking the patent No. 202885 dated 12-11-2002 granted to the respondent a German citizen. 2. The impugned Patent was filed on 12-11-2002 claiming the priority date 12-5-1999 and the Patent was granted on 2-2-2007 by the Patent Office after due examination of the Patent application having the title Azimuth driver for wind energy plants. The applicant is a Company registered under the Companies Act 1956, a subsidiary of ENERCON GmbH. Germany, applied for the revocation of the Patent on the following grounds. a. The subject matter of the Patent is obvious and does not involve any inventive step (Section 64 (1) f); b. The scope of the claims is not sufficiently and clearly defined. [Section 64 (1) (i)]. 3. The applicant stated that they are one of the foremost leaders i...
Tag this Judgment!