Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554
1. The above appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2000 in C.M.A.No.874 of 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. We need not go into the merits of the case, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the above appeal.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, second appeal is not maintainable, as barred under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. To appreciate the said condition, it is beneficial to extract Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which reads as follows:' Section 39: Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act and from none 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 file an arbit...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT1(SC); 1993(2)ARBLR95(SC); JT1993(3)SC394; (1993)105PLR200; 1993(2)SCALE798; (1993)3SCC1; [1993]3SCR640
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short and the only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if an appeal was maintainable against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act either under Section 39(2) of the Act or under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.2. Facts are not in dispute. Since the State did not appoint any Arbitrator as provided for in Clause 25 of the agreement despite letters by the respondent to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D.) and the Secretary P.W.D. the respondent approached the High Court and a Learned Single Judge by order dated 6th September, 1991 revoked the authority of the Chief Engineer to act as an arbitrator and directed one Shri O.K. Roy Chowdhury to act as the sole arbitrator as suggested by the respondent. Against this order the State filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the objection of the respondent as not maintainable. It has been held that the ...
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 : Mumbai
(For convenience, the various sections in the official copy of this judgment begin on new pages, and portions of some section-ending pages may therefore be blank. This is deliberate and is to be ignored.) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................................................4 CHRONOLOGY.......................................................................................8 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS....................................................... 18 CTR™S PATENT....................................................................................24 THE DTL TENDER SPECIFICATIONS ............................................32 CTR™S CASE IN INFRINGEMENT.................................................... 33 THE CONTESTING EXPERT OPINIONS......................................... 36 SCHEMATICS.......................................................................................40 COMBINATION PATENTS and MOSAICING.................................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC292Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Curative Petition (C) Nos.108-109 of 2022 In Review Petition (C) Nos.1158-1159 of 2021 In Civil Appeal Nos 5627-5628 of 2021 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Petitioner Versus Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Page 1 of 39 PART A JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Factual Background ................................................................................................... 3 B. DMRCs claim and the Tribunals findings ............................................................. 7 C. Decisions of the High Court .................................................................................... 10 D. Judgment of this Court in appeal ........................................................................... 11 E. Issues in the Curative Petition. .............................................................................. 12 F. Submissions .........................
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe - 39 U.S. 353 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe, 39 U.S. 14 Pet. 353 353 (1840) Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe * 39 U.S. (14 Pet.) 353 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Action of ejectment in the state court of Alabama for a lot of ground in the City of Mobile. The plaintiff claimed the title to the lot under an act of Congress, and the decision of the state court was against the right and title so set up and claimed. A writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Alabama. It was held that this case was embraced by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives this Court jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the state court in such cases. The act of Congress under which title was claimed being a private act and for the benefit of the City of Mobile and certain individuals, it is fair to presume it was passed with reference to the particular claims of indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In furtherance of order dated 20-8-2004 passed by the Full Bench, LPA (SR) No. 87377 of 2003 has been placed before the Larger Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether, after insertion of amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment 2. The background in which the aforementioned question has been referred to the Larger Bench deserves to be noticed first.3. By an award dated 1-10-1996, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi directed M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum to Sri 5. Surya Prakash Reddy in lieu of the death of his wife Rukmini caused in an accident which took place on 31-5-1991 on Tirupathi - Chandragiri Road. The appeal preferred by M/...
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!Court : Delhi
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!