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 : 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 : Delhi
Reported in : LC2007(2)13; 2007(34)PTC444(Del)
J.M. Malik, J. 1. This order shall decide the two appeals mentioned above which entail similar questions of facts and law. The controversy in these two appeals swirls around the question, 'is there any presumption in favor of the validity of the patent for grant of temporary injunction in favor of patentee.' The present appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Trial Court dated 7th February, 2007, wherein the Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the applications filed by the defendants/ respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were permitted and ex parte injunction orders dated 6th October, 2006 were vacated. However, the defendants/respondents were directed to maintain accounts of the sales they make of the impugned product. The defendants/respondents were also directed to submit the statement of accounts after every three months in the court and to submit undertakings that they would pay the damages...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 458/2009 % Reserved on:11. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 RECKITT BENKISER INDIA LTD Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sachdev, Advocate. Versus WYETH LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr. Vaishali Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 1.Reference has been made to this Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this court, vide the reference order dated 8.10.2010 in this FAO(OS), for this larger Bench to consider as to whether a Division Bench of this court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain & Anr. 2009 (39) PTC 10.(Del) (DB) has correctly held that publication abroad by existence of the design in the records of the Registrar of designs which is open for public inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 19(1981)DLT334; 1981RLR339
Rajindar Sachar, J. (1) Is an order passed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act (to be called the Act) refusing to enlarge the time for the arbitrator to make the award appealable under Section 39 of the Act is the point involved in this appeal against the order of T.P.S. Ghawla, J. by which the learned Judge refused to extend time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act on an application moved by Union of India, the appellant. (2) A contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for the supply of soap sometime in 1966. The full price for the Supply was made in August, 196/. However, the appellant/Union of India by its letter of 3.2.1968 informed the respondent that the supplies by it were found defective on test. The said claim was not accepted by the respondent. As the agreement contained an arbitration clause the matter was referred to Mr. P. Ramchandani, Arbitrator, to adjudicate the dispute on 20.8.1969. He entered upon a reference on the same date. Proceedi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001IVAD(Delhi)549; 2001(59)DRJ17; 2002(1)RAJ482
ORDERAnil Dev Singh, J. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 13th October, 1998. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows :- 2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office in New Delhi. It is engaged in the business of marketing and sale of ice cream under the brand name 'Milk Food 100% Ice Cream'. The first respondent is also a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Gaya, Bihar. 3. The appellant and the first respondent entered into an agreement on April 7, 1992 by virtue of which first respondent was to manufacture and pack in its factory for the appellant, range of ice cream that may be mutually agreed upon between the parties from time to time. The agreement was to remain in force for a period of five years. The first respondent was required to deposit a sum of Rs. ten lakhs with the appellant for a per...
Tag this Judgment!