Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :05. 09.2013 Judgment pronounced on :23. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 1631/2013 PUNEET KAUSHIK AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv with Mr Praveen Anand, Ms. Divya Vijan, Ms. Ayushi Kiran & Ms. Neeti Wilson, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Adv. & Dr. Kavita Taunk, Assistant Controller of Patents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court claim to have filed on 14.9.2012, in the Patents Office (India) at New Delhi, an international (PCT) application in terms of Rule 18.3 of the PCT Rules, enclosing therewith (i) Form-25 (in duplicate) on behalf of petitioner no.1 Puneet Kaushik (ii) Power of Attorney for Form-25 (copy) (iii) PCT Request along with Declaration of Inventorship (in duplicate) (iv) PCT Power of Attorney (v) complete specification along with drawings (in duplicate) (vi) PCT fee c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi771; 1974RLR335
H. L. Anand, J.(1) The question that arises in this appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the High Court Act') is as to its maintainability either under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act or under Section 10 of the High Court Act or under clause 10 of the letters Patent. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances : (2) The appellant had entered into a contract with the Regional Director (Food), Northern Region, New Delhi for handling/transporting work at Central Storage Depot, Shahjahanpur. The contract contained an arbitration clause and pursuant to certain disputes that arose between the parties, the same were referred to an Arbitrator in terms of the contract who, by an Award made on December 6, 1966 awarded a sum of Rs. 78.212.20 in favor of the appellant. On the same day, the Arbitrator issued a notice to the appellant and the Union of India, resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a bunch of appeals preferred by the present appellant before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is about the maintainability of appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, rejecting the application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree making the Award Rule of the Court. The other question is as to whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the proceedings for making the award Rule of the Court since the District Courts of Asansol had also been moved by the appellant to issue notice to the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, for filing of the award in the Asansol Court.2. It appears that the appellant, namely the Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The question in this bunch of Appeals concerns the legal proprietary of judicial directions for the removal of an arbitrator even before the publishing of an Award. Several judgments of our esteemed Single Benches have been cited before us, a perusal of which manifests the existence of a polarity of opinion. On one side of the watershed is the view that assertions as to the de jure or de facto incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal must immediately be addressed by the Court, and in deserving cases remedied, whilst on the other side is the contrary view that the statutorily provided procedure postulates an immediate remonstration but a deferred assailment of the Award, inter alia on this ground, by way of an invocation of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short). 2. At the threshold, an objection has been lodged to the maintainability of the Appeals on the ground that Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for such remedy only against orders (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2007Cal260,2008(1)ARBLR83(Cal),(2007)3CALLT424(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 17th September, 2003 passed by a learned single Judge in Execution Case No. 28 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has granted reliefs in terms of prayers in column 10 of the Tabular Statement enforcing a foreign award under the provisions of Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred in short as the said Act). This appeal was admitted by a judgment and order dated 19th September, 2003 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Seth and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sinha (as their Lordships then were) subject to the question of maintainability and preliminary objection. By this order no formal paper book was asked to be filed dispensing with other formalities and treating the application as informal paper book, however, liberty was granted to include additional papers in the informal supplementary pape...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1962Mad52
(1) This appeal originally came before a Division Bench of this court. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the appeal was incompetent. The ruling of this court inRadhakrishnamurthy v. Ethirajulu Chetti and Co., ILR 1945 Mad 564 : (AIR 1945 Mad 184), directly supported the preliminary objection. But, after some argument, it was considered that decision required reconsideration. Hence, this reference to a Full Bench.(2) The appeal purports to be filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Ramaswami, J. In C. M. A. No. 531 of 1954. That appeal was against an order of the City Civil Court, dismissing an application filed by the respondent under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act for stay of a suit (O. S. No. 538 of 1954) on the file of the City Civil Court. Section 39(1) inter alia provider for an appeal form an order staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement (cl. (V)).The question is whether an appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal642
Sinha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mallick, J. on the 28th August, 1962 whereby he dismissed two applications for the appointment of a Receiver, one in respect of a Trust known as the 'Ram Ranjan Trust', and another in respect of a Trust Known as the Brojabala Trust. The applications were dismissed on a preliminary ground, namely, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain them. The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the applications. The short facts are as follows: Maharaja Ram Ranjan Chakravartti of Hetampur created a trust known as the 'Ram Ranjan Trust', by a Deed of trust dated 11th August, 1887; and his wife Maharani Padma Sundari Debi created another trust called the 'Brojabala Trust' by a Deed of trust dated 27th February, 1895. These trusts related to various immoveable properties situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The trusts were created for various purposes including the Seva Puja of certain deities and for certain charitable p...
Tag this Judgment!