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
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:19. h March, 2013 % + IA No.11625/2012 (of the plaintiffs u/O 3.R-1&2 CPC) & IA No.17014/2012 & IA.No. 18679/2012 (both of the defendants u/O 3.R-4 CPC) in CS(OS) No.1866/2012 and Counter Claim 25/2013 SUGEN INC. & ORS. Through: ..... Plaintiffs Mr. C.R. Andhyarujina & Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Soumik Ghosal & Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advs. versus A. RAO & ANR. Through: ..... Defendants Mr. C. Mukund with Ms. Firdouse Wani, Ms. Ekta Bhasin & Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advs. CORAM :HONBLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J 1.The three plaintiffs viz. Sugen Inc., Pfizer Inc & Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. have instituted this suit against the two defendants i.e. defendant No.2 NATCO Pharma Ltd. and its President (Research & Development) & Additional Director Mr. A. Rao, for injunction from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting any product infringing the subject matter of Indian Patent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(106)DRJ482; LC2008(3)402; 2008(38)PTC385(Del)
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. This order will dispose of IA No. 9823/2005, IA No. 647/2006, IA No.51/2006 preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, respectively. The plaintiff allegs violation of copyright in its literary work and seeks an order restraining the defendants from infringing its copyright. 2. The plaintiff is a well-known publisher of academic books, and started publishing in India in 1912. It has established show rooms in different places of India. The plaintiff avers to publishing substantial number of school books for use from Kindergarten to the twelfth standard, with the help of a team of highly trained and committed editorial, research, production and marketing professionals. These books cover most disciplines including science, mathematics, languages, humanities and economics, for most Educational Boards including CBSE and ICSE. 3. The plaintiff has published, in two parts, a text book for the students of Class XI, follow...
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!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Plaintiffs F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (`Roche') and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc. (`OSI') is directed against the judgment dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing I.A. No. 642/2008 filed by them in their suit CS (OS) No. 89/2008, thereby declining their prayer for grant of an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent Cipla Limited from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff No. 2 claimed to hold a patent jointly with Pfizer Products Inc. The impugned judgment nevertheless put the defendant to terms including furnishing an undertaking to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the event of the suit being decreed, to maintain accounts of the sale of its product Erlocip, file in the court quarterly accounts along with the affidavit of one of its directors, and to file in the court annual statement of the sales of Erlocip duly authenticated by its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1997Delhi79; 1996(25)ARBLR522(Delhi); 62(1996)DLT291; 1996(37)DRJ14; 1996RLR280
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, C. J. 1. The point arising in the case is of considerable importance in regard to patents registered in India by foreigners and not kept in use in our country and thereby seriously affecting our market and economy. The foreigner in this case is seeking temporary injunction against other users and the question is whether the non-use of the patented mechanical device by the foreigner in India can be a ground for refusing temporary injunction? 2. The appellant, Franz Xayer Huemer, is an Austrian citizen. He filed the Suit No. 468 of 1994 on 26-2-1994 seeking a permanent Injunction restraining the respondent from making, using, exercising, selling or distributing any items which infringe the 5 patents belonging to the plaintiff bearing Numbers 161520, 162589, 162369, 163591 and 163095 and for a mandatory injunction to hand over to the plaintiff all goods, advertising material or items which infringe the above patents, and for accounts of the profits. The plaint is f...
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 : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)613; AIR2000Delhi23; 80(1999)DLT56
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.By this common order I propose to dispose of the applications registered as I.A. 11829/1998, 774/1999 and 775/1999 in Suit No. 2391/1998: I.A. 9131/1996 & 1530/1997 in Suit No. 2428/1996; I.A. 1207/1997, 2588/1997 & 3368/1997 in Suit No. 289/1997; I.A. 7489/1995 in Suit No. 1669/1994, I.A. 7749/1996 in Suit No. 1970/1995, I.A. 9132/1996 & 4746/1998 in Suit No. 2427/1996 & I.A. 7374/1995 in C.O. No. 25/1995. For convenience sake, the plaintiff in Suit No. 2391/1998, M/s. Standipack Private Limited is being described as the plaintiff throughout in the present order and the other parties are described as defendants. Injunction applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or using the patented pouch of the plaintiff. The case sought to be made out by the plaintiff in the injunction applications is that the patent in respect of pouch for storage and dispensing of a liquid such as lubri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR615(Delhi)
Manmohan, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present appeal being FAO (OS) No. 198/2004 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1996. In this appeal the appellant has prayed for setting aside of the judgment and order dated 17th September, 2004 passed by the Single Judge of this Court in OMP No. 407/2003 by virtue of which the Appellant's application under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.2. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present appeal. Mr. Kaul contends that in view of Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Arbitration Act, 1996), it is not open to the Appellant to file the present appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. He submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as the two contingencies in which appeal is maintainable as provi...
Tag this Judgment!