Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-09-2010
Reported in : LC2010(1)242
S. Muralidhar, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellants?In the writ petition the appellants Bayer Corporation and Bayer Polychem (India) Ltd. (hereafter collectively referred to as 'Bayer') sought directions inter alia to restrain the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), respondent No. 2 herein, from granting a drug licence to Cipla Ltd. (hereafter 'Cipla'), respondent No. 3 herein (a generic drug manufacturer), to manufacture, sell and distribute its drug 'sorafenib tosylate', prescribed for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Facts in brief2. On 5th July, 2001 Bayer Corporation, Appellant No. 1, filed a patent application in India in respect of an invention entitled 'Carboxyaryl Substituted Diphenyl Ureas'. On 1st January 2003 Bayer Corporation transferred its rights to Bayer Pharamceuticals Corporation (BPC) and on 1st August 2007 BPC in turn transferred its righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-27-2010
Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of LA. No. 3756/2007 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale copper free mirrors infringing the plaintiffs registered patent No. 190380.Case of the Plaintiff2. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium. In India, the plaintiffs sales and marketing etc. are carried out by Glavindia Pvt. Ltd., 507 Gateway Plaza, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400076, Maharashtra.3. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling glasses, mirrors of world class quality. The plaintiff claims in the suit to be the innovator of the technology which has lead to the manufacture of mirrors of improved quality.4. The plaintiff in the present suit claims to be owner of the process as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-2010
Reported in : LC2010(1)278
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These six petitions raise an important question of law concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order passed by the Controller of Patents (Controller.) either allowing or rejecting a pre-grant opposition filed under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act.).2. Before discussing the facts of the individual cases the scheme of the Patents Act, particularly after the amendment to the relevant provisions by way of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Amendment Act.) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Mitra & Company v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs : (2008) 10 SCC 368 require to be examined. The statutory scheme of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act3. Section 15 of the Patents Act states that where the Controller is satisfied that the application for grant of patent, or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof, does not comply with the requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-21-2010
Madan B. Lokur, A.C.J.1. The question for our consideration is rather narrow: Is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (as applicable to the Delhi High Court) maintainable against an order enforcing a foreign award (within the meaning of Sections 44 and 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Article II of the New York Convention)? The question is required to be answered in the context of Section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, in our opinion, the answer is in the negative. For this conclusion, we rely upon a four-Judge decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. : AIR 1962 SC 256 and a Constitution Bench decision in P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. : (2004) 11 SCC 672.2. The broad facts of the case are that two 'foreign awards' were rendered in favour of the Respondent on 30 August, 1996 and 16th October, 1996. The Respondent moved execution petitions under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-20-2010
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the impugned order dated 15.06.2009, wherein the approval under Section 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') is indicated to have been given with effect from 01.04.2007 as against from 01.04.2004 which the petitioner was seeking.2. As aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.06.2009 has been passed in the context of the provisions of Section 35(2AB) of the said Act. The said Section 35(2AB), as was applicable during the relevant period, reads as under:35. Expenditure on scientific research.-xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx(2AB) - (1) Where a company engaged in the business of [bio-technology or in] 'any business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, not being an article or thing specified in the list of the Eleventh Schedule' incurs any expenditure on scientific research (not being expenditure in the nature of cost of any land or building) on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-30-2010
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not?3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? 1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.2008 the Central Administrative Tribunal has allowed OA No.1915/2007 filed by the respondent and has quashed the charge sheet issued against the respondent on the ground that there has been delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, secondly that it is a case where a decision has already been taken to punish the respondent and the proposed disciplinary proceedings are a mere ruse and lastly that the misdemeanour alleged against the respondent did not attract moral turpitude and since the respondent had retired from service penalty as contemplated by Rule 9 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 could not be inflicted.2. It may be noted at the outset that the Inquiry W.P.(C) No.9493/2009 Page 1 of 16 Officer was yet to complete the inquiry when the proceedings got interdicte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-24-2010
Rajiv Shakdher, J.IA No. 12926/2009 (Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(OS) 1889/2009IA No. 13058/2009 (Order 39 Ruoe 1 & 2 of CPC) in CS(OS) 1906/20091. I propose to dispose of the captioned applications in the abovementioned suits being: CS(OS) No. 1906/2009 and 1889/2009 by a common order for the reason that parties in the two suits are common [save and except M3 Media Pvt. Ltd. which is impleaded as defendant No. 2 in CS(OS) No. 1906/2009; and similarly, Hamar Television Network Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Hamar TV), which is impleaded as defendant No. 1 in CS(OS) 1889/2009]; the pleadings are identical except for minor differences; and lastly though not the least, the issues and submissions made before me are common. Thus, except for the fact that relief is directed against parties which are not entirely identical, there is substantial commonality of parties, issues, pleadings and also reliefs.2. Coming to the applications: the plaintiff, which carries on its business un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-15-2010
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes 1. The short but interesting question of law common to all these petitions: When can a patent be said to be granted under the Patents Act, 1970 (Act)? The question arises in the context of the dismissal of pre- grant oppositions by the Controller of Patents (Controller) on the ground that they were time-barred under Section 21 of the Act.2. The factual background in each set of petitions is necessary to be set out in order to appreciate how the question arises for determination in each of them.3. J. Mitra & Company Respondent No.5 in W.P. (C) No. 3516 of 2007 filed two patent Application Nos. 590/Del/2000 and 593/Del/2000 in the Office of the Controller on 14th June 2000. The patent specifications involved in the two applications were published in the official gazette on 20th November 2004 in terms of Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-30-2010
Gita Mittal, J.1. GAIL (India) Ltd. (referred to as the petitioner/GAIL hereafter) entered into two contracts with the Paramount Limited ('Contractor'/respondent hereafter), one in respect of a Waste Water Treatment Plant at UPCC, Pata, and the second with regard to the Condensate Polishing Unit (Part-B) for a Gas Cracker Unit for U.P. Petrochemical Complex of M/s GAIL at Pata, Uttar Pradesh.2. Identical disputes arose in respect of completion of the two contracts resulting in initiation of the arbitration in both matters. The disputes in both contracts were referred to the arbitration of Shri T.S. Vijayaraghavan as sole arbitrator. Separate proceedings were held by the learned arbitrator which culminated in the making and pronouncement of two awards both dated 20th November, 2003 in favour of the contractor. GAIL has assailed the said awards by way of the separate objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 which have been registered as OMP No. 66/2004 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-14-2010
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The genuineness and validity of purported Will dated 28.02.1985 got registered on 29.05.1985 of Lala Hansraj Gupta, Ex. Mayor of Delhi is the subject matter of the present appeal. After the death of Lala Hansraj Gupta (hereinafter referred to as the testator) on 03.07.1985, the appellant (one of his sons) filed the probate case No.62/1985 in October, 1985, propounding that Will. Some other legal heirs had challenged the veracity thereof. The learned Single Judge has returned his findings holding that the purported Will, in his opinion, is not a genuine Will which has resulted in the dismissal of the probate petition. Assailing that judgment, present appeal is preferred by the appellant.2. The testator had a family consisting of wife, four married sons and two married daughters. Names of his children and fe...
Tag this Judgment!