Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-2009
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
Decided on : Aug-28-2009
Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. IA No. 6782/2009(Under Section XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) & IA No. 8372/2009 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 1. IA No. 6782/2009 is an application by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ad-interim ex parte injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from infringing the rights of the Plaintiff under No. 213608 (granted on January 9, 2008 by the Controller of Patents) by accepting the offer for sale of a side bearing pad assembly by the Consortium of which Defendants 2 to 4 are members. It also seeks an injunction to restrain Defendants 2 to 4 from making, manufacturing, using or offering for sale the side bearing pad assembly by infringing the Plaintiff's Patent. By an order dated 27th May 2009 this Court restrained Defendants 2, 3 and 4 and erstwhile Defendant No. 3 till the next date of hearing from infringing the patent rights of the Plaintiff and further restrained them from manufacturing, using or offering for sale any device in infringement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2009
Reported in : 2009(40)PTC593(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiffs filed this suit for permanent injunction against defendants since defendants had brought out a product in the market as MEDIFLON SAFETY. It is alleged that this product of the defendants infringes the plaintiffs' Patent No. 210062. The claim of plaintiffs patent No. 210062, as given in the plaint and in the documents filed mainly concerns claim No. 21 of the patent application filed by plaintiffs on 18th August 1998 and granted on 17th September 2007. It is described as under:Claim 21: An IV catheter assembly comprising:a needle having a needle shaft and a needle tip, the needle shaft comprising a portion of increased diameter proximal from the needle tip;. a housing having a cavity formed therein;. a needle guard disposed within the cavity, the needle guard comprising a proximal wall having first and second end portions and an opening therein, through which the needle shaft extends, and a resilient arm extending distally from the first end of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-01-2009
Reported in : 168(2009)DLT177; 2009(40)PTC613(Del)
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 25,34,964.62 as royalty amount under license agreement dated 23rd July 1975 between the parties and interest accrued thereon as well as for rendition of account.2. Plaintiff alleged that under one of its sponsorship schemes of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research developed a process for the manufacture of Terpolymers of Acrylonitrile Butadine (ABS Resigns) using what was known as emulsion technology. This process was got patented vide Patent Nos. 110090 and 118359 and assigned in favour of the plaintiff by a deed of assignment dated 28th May 1974. The assignment was duly registered with the Controller of Patents and Designs. The plaintiff entered into a deed of license with the defendant on 23rd July 1975 in respect of the above patent. By this license deed, the defendant acquired a non exclusive license for a term of eight years w.e.f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-15-2009
Reported in : LC2009(2)292; 2009(40)PTC193(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. The plaintiffs seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale and in any other manner dealing in or with safety I.V. catheters / cannulae or other device or apparatus that infringes the subject matter of the plaintiffs' registered patent number 210062. The plaintiffs also seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, exporting, advertising or dealing in any safety I.V. catheters / cannulae under the trademark 'VASOFIX(r) Safety(tm)' or any other mark which uses the plaintiffs' alleged confidential information, know-how, trade secrets, data, technical input, drawings, materials and / or any other resource derived by the defendants from the plaintiffs. 2. According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 1 (B. Braun Melsungen AG), which is a company incorporated in Germany, supplies the global healthcare m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-14-2009
Reported in : 166(2010)DLT242
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The plaintiff in this Suit seeks declaration as to Will dated 06.09.1995, which he disputes, as not legal and binding and that it contravenes Section 114 of the Indian Succession Act; he also claims that in the event of declaration not being granted, the Court should hold that the said Will is void and not binding on him. He further seeks a decree for partition in respect of the estate of Mrs. Lajja Sareen (hereafter called 'the testatrix') regarding the property No. N-84, Panchsheel Park (hereafter referred to as 'suit property'), movable/immovable assets fully described in the Suit, for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition and take consequential steps towards drawing a final decree.2. The undisputed facts that may be gathered from the pleadings are that the plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'Sarvjeet'), Defendant No. 1 (hereafter referred to as 'Ritu') and defendant No. 2 (hereafter referred to as 'Beena') are brother and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-07-2009
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT406
Sanjiv Khanna, J.1. Indus Renaissance Partners Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Anshuman Kapur, defendants 1 and 2 have filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for short) for disposal/dismissal of the Suit filed by Ministry of Sound International Ltd, the plaintiff herein on the ground that the disputes are covered by the arbitration clause between the parties. The plaintiff, as per the plaint, is a private company incorporated under the laws of Ireland.2. The plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 admit execution of the Agreement dated 7th December, 2006 granting licence to defendant No. 1 to use its trademarks/copyright in respect of 'Ministry of Sound', 'The Ministry', 'Ministry', 'MOS' and logo of the plaintiff and to run a night club by the name of 'The Pyramid'.3. Agreement dated 7th December, 2006 incorporates Clause 29 under the heading Governing law, Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution. The said Clause reads...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-07-2009
Reported in : 162(2009)DLT298; 2009(41)PTC24(Del)
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J1. These applications, one by the plaintiff for an ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the other for vacating the ex parte injunction by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, have been filed in respect of the suit which is essentially a suit for infringement of a registered design. In the said suit, the plaintiff has, inter alia, sought the relief of permanent injunction as well as damages.2. As per the plaint, the plaintiff was incorporated on 05.07.1951 under the name and style of Reckitt and Coleman of India Limited. However, pursuant to a worldwide merger between Reckitt and Coleman Plc and Benckiser, a Dutch Company, in 1999, the name of the plaintiff was changed from Reckitt and Coleman India Limited to Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited. It is averred that the plaintiff is a world leader in cosmetic depilatories. Veet is one such leading cosmetic depilation brand which is sold by the plaintiff in over 50 countries worldwide and regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Sep-22-2009
Reported in : 172(2009)DLT319
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. The present public interest litigation has been filed by All India Lawyers' Union seeking directions for ensuring free medical treatment in terms of the lease agreement dated 16th March, 1994 entered into between the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the GNCTD) and respondent No. 2, i.e. Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd./Indraprastha Apollo Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the IMCL) to establish a multi-disciplinary super specialty hospital. The petition is, inter alia, directed against the inaction of the GNCTD and IMCL to provide free treatment and medicines to the poor and needy citizens at the respondent No. 2 hospital. It is contended inter alia that such inaction of both the respondents is adversely affecting the mandates of Articles 21, 39(e), 41, and 47 of Constitution of India. In course of proceedings, the Union of India and the Delhi Development Authority were also impleaded as party respondents. Before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-09-2009
Reported in : (2009)154PLR2
Manmohan, J.1. C.M. No. 16567/2006 (Condonation of delay).By the present application the petitioner have sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C).2. The petitioners herein had filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, against the Respondents. However, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of C.P.C. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal by the petitioners. In the said appeal, a preliminary objection was taken by the Respondents to its maintainability on the ground that no appeal was maintainable by virtue of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act. The said objection was overruled by the Appellate Court vide its order dated 24th October, 2005.3. On a petition being CM(M) 2834-39/2005 2834-39/2005 filed by the Respondents, learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the said petition vide order dated 9th November, 20...
Tag this Judgment!