Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
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
Decided on : Dec-19-2014
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
Decided on : Feb-28-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 31, 2014 Decision on: February 28, 2014 CS (OS) 3193 of 2012 & CC No.49 of 2013, IA Nos. 10389-90 of 2013, 10638 of 2013, 20025 of 2013, 18788 of 2013 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate, Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Praveen Anand, Ms. Archana Shankar, Mr. Nischal Anand and Mr. Aman Taneja, Advocates Versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rajeshwari, Mr. Tahir Abdul, Ms. Sudipa, Mr. Amit Gupta & Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUDGMENT2802.2014 1. IA No.10390 of 2013 is an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC filed by Natco Pharma Limited (Natco) for return of the plaint for want of jurisdiction. IA No.10389 of 2013 is an application filed by Natco under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. Natco has also filed IA No.10638 of 2013 under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:5th February, 2014 Date of Decision:28. h April, 2014 % + W.P.(C) 1478/2012 & CM APPLS. 3251 AND7183OF2012MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv. with Ms Misha, Mr Karan Sachdev, Ms Ritu Bhalla and Mr Kartik, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr Jatan Singh, CGSC and Mr Soayib Qureshi, Mr Naginder Benial and Mr Mudit Gupta, Advs. for UOI + W.P.(C) 3737/2012 & CM APPL.7842/2012 ST. STEPHENS' HOSPITAL Through: ..... Petitioner Mr Rajeev Sharma, Mr Uddyam Mukherjee and Mr Sahil Bhalaik, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA Through: + ..... Respondent Mr Sunil Kumar and Mr Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Adv. for UOI W.P.(C) 3792/2013 & CM APPL.7082/2013 SITARAM BHARTIA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE & RESEARCH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Lalit Bhasin and Ms Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra, Advs. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Rajiv Bansal with Ms Khusboo Garg, Mr Ankit Sharma a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-20-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-20-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-20-2014
$~16. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1715/2012 Date of Decision:20th November, 2013 % VIJAY KUMAR Through : ..... Petitioner Mr.S.B. Dandapani, Adv. versus STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Dayan Krishnan and Ms.Manvi Priya, Advs. for the State. SI Ashish S. Dalal, P.S. Kapashera. G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties the present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The necessary facts to be noticed and as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner stands convicted by a judgment and order on sentence dated 18.8.2003. The petitioner is serving the sentence awarded and has served more than 11 years out of total sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has raised a plea of being a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 6.10.2001. According to the petitioner, on the date of incident he was 16 year old. In support of his plea of juvenility the petitioner has filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2014
$~43. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1151/2014 % Judgment reserved on 4.9.2014 % Judgment pronounced on 14.11.2014 EDUCARE LIMITED & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Wadhwa, Mr.Zeeshan Khan and Mr.Tushar John, Advocates versus S.K. SACHDEV & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr.M.K. Miglani, Mr.Aayushmaan Gauba and Mr.Kapil Kumar Giri, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J IA.No.7512/2014 & IA.No.10541/2014 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While issuing summons to the defendants this court had restrained the defendants from using the trademark/ trade name, ShreeRam World School and the domain name www.shreeram.in, as it was deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs trade-mark SHRI RAM / SHRIRAM in relation to its services.2. IA.No.10541/2014 has been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2014
$~43. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1151/2014 % Judgment reserved on 4.9.2014 % Judgment pronounced on 14.11.2014 EDUCARE LIMITED & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Wadhwa, Mr.Zeeshan Khan and Mr.Tushar John, Advocates versus S.K. SACHDEV & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Mr.M.K. Miglani, Mr.Aayushmaan Gauba and Mr.Kapil Kumar Giri, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J IA.No.7512/2014 & IA.No.10541/2014 1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While issuing summons to the defendants this court had restrained the defendants from using the trademark/ trade name, ShreeRam World School and the domain name www.shreeram.in, as it was deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs trade-mark SHRI RAM / SHRIRAM in relation to its services.2. IA.No.10541/2014 has been filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-05-2014
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:05. 11.2014 CM96872014 in W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Advocate with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Ms Arpita Sawhney and Mr Arun Kumar. For the Respondents : Mr Riput Daman S. Bhardwaj, CGSC and Mr T.P. Singh for UOI. Mr Mukesh Anand with Ms Sonia Sharma, Mr V.C. Jha for R-2 to 4 Customs Department. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 This is an application filed on behalf of respondent no.5 (hereafter referred to as NPL) inter alia praying for permission to export 1 kg. of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (hereafter API) Sorafenib for the purposes of conducting development/clinical studies and trials. The said application was necessitated because of an interim order dated 26.03.2014 passed by this Court whereby respondent nos. 1 to 4 were directed to ensure ...
Tag this Judgment!