Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2008
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT73; 2009(39)PTC212(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for anti suit injunction, damages and other reliefs. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking issuance of an ex parte ad interim injunction being I.A. No. 5854/08 has also been filed. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued on 13th May 2008 restraining the Appellants, their agents and representatives from proceeding further with the complaint pending on the file of the United States International Trade Commission, Washington DC, USA ( hereinafter referred to as 'USITC') under Section 337 of the United States Trade Tariff Act.2. Against the said ex-parte ad-interim order present Appeal under Section 10(1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order 41 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed.3. While granting the ex parte ad interim injunction the learned single Judge in Para 12 of the impugned order has given the following reasons:In the present case, the plaintiff, in addition to disclosing a prima facie case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-22-2008
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
Decided on : May-30-2008
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!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-21-2008
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT28
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1940 read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act against the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2007 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court. By virtue of the impugned order the learned Single Judge made the Award dated 5th April, 1972 Rule of the Court and directed that a decree sheet be prepared in terms of the Award as objections to the Award had already been withdrawn and no objections to the Award were pending.2. Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant stated that he had no dispute with the Award passed by the learned Arbitrators but as the properties awarded to the Appellant, specially land at Sawan Park, Wazirpur, Delhi, had been fraudulently disposed of by the Respondents, the Award was liable to be set aside. He submitted that the mandate of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 had not been followed by learned Single Judge before making the Aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-17-2008
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 : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-2008
Reported in : LC2008(2)304; 2008(37)PTC41(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act') praying for an order that the present suit be stayed pending final disposal of proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendants filed an amended written statement on 15.01.2008 wherein they have pleaded that their trademark 'ORIGINAL CHOICE' and the device in Class 33 for 'wines, spirits and liqueurs' has been registered under No. 722161. It is further contended that the defendants, on the strength of the said registration, have raised the plea that in view of the provisions of Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e) of the said Act, the plaintiff's relief for infringement of trademark as, inter alia, prayed in this suit, would not be maintainable against the defendants. It is further stated by the plaintiff that on 29.01.2008, an amended replication to the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-2008
Reported in : 149(2008)DLT155; 2008(36)PTC210(Del)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. A learned Single Judge sitting on the original side of this Court had declined to reject the plaint in a suit for infringement of a patent and dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present appeal assails the correctness of that order.2. The legal position as to the approach that the Courts have to adopt while dealing with applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is well settled by a series of judicial pronouncements including those by the Supreme Court. Before we refer to some of those decisions, we may extract Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for ready reference. It reads:11. Rejection of plaint. - The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;(c) where the relief clai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-20-2008
Reported in : 154(2008)DLT140
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. A family dispute and the consequent challenge to the Will dated 19.10.1972 and Codicil dated 25.4.1990 executed by late Shri Gopal Das Behal has given rise to the present proceedings. The respondent filed a petition for grant of probate/letters of administration which came to be allowed by the learned District Judge, Delhi, who by judgment dated 16.10.2003 issued the letters of administration to the respondent. The appellant aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal being FAO No. 420/2003 under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which was also dismissed by the learned single Judge on 31.03.2008 and the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the same order. When a question arose as to maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) the learned Judges of the Division Bench were of the view that the reasons given by another Division Bench of this Court in Satish Chander...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(2)ARBLR365(Delhi); 2008(104)DRJ59
Manmohan, J.1. The Appellant has filed the present first appeal being FAO (OS) No. 71/2006 under Order XLIII read with Order XLIIA read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966, against the order dated 29th August, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By way of impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Respondent No. 1's application for referring the disputes raised in the suit by the Appellant/Plaintiff to arbitration. In fact, the learned Single Judge specifically directed, 'that the parties should take recourse to arbitration and the Arbitrators be appointed in terms of the Arbitration Clause.'2. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that the Plaintiff is dominus litus and has the right to choose the parties and the forum to enforce the rights legally available to him. He further contends that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Defendant No. 2 is neither a signatory nor a party to the Master Lease Agreement or the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2008
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT407
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its application IA No. 1910 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in CS (OS) No. 314 of 2007, the Plaintiff Dabur India Limited ('DIL') has filed this appeal. With the consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The Appellant states that it is the fourth largest fast moving consumer goods company in India engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals, toiletries and medicinal preparations and that it has been carrying on its trading activities since 1884. Among its reputed products is Amla Hair Oil which is being marketed under the trade mark Dabur Amla Hair Oil. The Appellant states that besides vast sales in India it has also been exporting Dabur Amla Hair Oil to various countries since 1884. Dabur Amla Hair Oil is marketed in plastic bottles shaped with a semi-circular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel tapering into each other, thereby providing a novel and original overall appearance and ...
Tag this Judgment!