Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT412(HC)
M.H.S. Ansari, J. 1. I had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned Brother Sinha, J. in agreeing with the conclusions to the effect that the appeal in the instant case is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, 1 wish to state my own reasons therefor, as under:2. The matter has been referred to the Special Bench for considering the correctness of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in M/s. Merchants of Traders (P) Ltd. v. M/S. Sarmon Pvt. Ltd.. reported in (1997)2 CAL LT 38(HC). By the said Judgment, the Division Bench held that the appeal preferred against an order of a learned single Judge of this High Court is not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The learned single Judge by his order under appeal before the said Division Bench had granted conditional leave to defend the suit in terms of Order 37 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division Bench had followed the ratio' of the earlier Division Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 03.2018 Pronounced on:11. 04.2018 FAO (OS) (COMM) 86/2017, C.M. APPL.14331, 14335, 15669, 17064/2017 NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. AND ORS. Appellants Through: Sh. C.A. Sundaram, Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Diya Kapur, Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Ms. Swati Setia, Sh. Essence Obhan, Ms. Himanie Katoch, Sh. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Pooja Katara, Ms. Charul Yadav, Sh. Abhishek Saket, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Sh. Jatin and Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocates. Versus MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC AND ORS. ..Respondents Through: Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Ms. Prathiba. M. Singh, Sh. C.M. Lall, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Bitika Sharma, Sh. Kapil Midha, Ms. Namrita Kochhar, Ms. Deepshika Malhotra, Sh. Adarsh Ramanujam, Sh. Anil Dutt, Sh. Shantanu Agarwal, Sh. Rishi Agarwala, Ms. Anusuya Nigam, Sh. Lakshay Kaushik and Ms. Ruchika Wadhawan, Advocates. Sh. Sunil Mathews, Advocate, for UOI. Sh. Neel Mason and Ms. Ridhima, Advocates, for Amar Biotech Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wilcox v. Jackson - 38 U.S. 498 (1839) U.S. Supreme Court Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 13 Pet. 498 498 (1839) Wilcox v. Jackson 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498 ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Syllabus Ejectment for a tract of land in Cook County, Illinois, being a fractional section embracing the military post called Fort Dearborn at the time of the institution of the suit, in the possession of the defendant as the commanding officer of the United States. The post was established in 1804, and was occupied by the troops of the United States until August 16, 1812, when the troops were massacred and the fort taken by the enemy. It was reoccupied by the United States in 1816, and continued to be so held until May, 1823, during which time some factory houses, for the use of the Indian Department, were erected on it. It was evacuated by order of the War Department in 1823, and was, by order of the department, again occupied by troops in 1828 as one of the military posts of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal367,(1997)1CALLT123(HC),100CWN562
ORDER1. This hearing arises out of an application for temporary injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the suit the plaintiff prays for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, and assignees etc. from in any way in fringing or attempting to infringe Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff; Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from in any way manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or advertising any toilet soap bearing the Trade Mark 'VIGIL' or any other trade mark and having the composition that is covered under and/or within the range of Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff. Delivery upon oath of all toilet soaps already manufactured and in possession, power and custody of the defendant No. 1 and/or the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and/ or their agents and servants that in any way infringe and/ or have been manufactured in accordance with the Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1986Cal338
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an umpire. The petitioner entered into a contract on 22nd/23rd Nov. 1982 by accepting the tender submitted by the respondent. The contract contained an arbitration clause that disputes arising out of the contract would be decided by arbitration. Disputes arose and reference was made to the joint arbitrators in accordance with the agreement. By a letter dt. 13-4-84 the arbitrators intimated the petitioner that they had received the statement of claim from the respondent and called upon the petitioner to submit its counter-statement on or before 2-5-84. The petitioner alleges that the joint arbitrators entered upon the reference without appointing an umpire. The petitioner by letter dt. 23-4-84 pointed out to the joint arbitrators that they did not appoint an umpire before entering upon the reference and requested them to appoint the umpire. It is alleged that in spite of such n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K67
Nazki, J.1. There is much ado about nothing. These four appeals have been filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this court and are directed against the order rejecting the applicant's application for framing additional issues. Some facts are necessary in order to resolve controversy. Disputes arose between Irrigation Department and the respondent, these disputes were referred to an arbitrator who gave four awards. Awards were filed in this court, State filed objections to the award. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter was pending framed four issues. After the framing of the issues, an application was made by the appellant State in each case for framing additional issues and for recasting of the issues framed. The application was resisted by the respondent and the learned single Judge rejected the application. Against this rejection for framing of additional issues and for recasting of issues already framed, this appeal has been filed under Clause 12 of Letters Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj185; 1983()WLN439
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court and arises out of an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 2. The appellant Ramdhan was declared elected as a Member of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly from the Ladnu Legislative Assembly Constituency on June 1, 1980. The respondent Bhanwarlal claiming himself to be an elector of the Ladnu Constituency presented an election petition in this Court on July 14, 1980 alleging that Ramdhan was guilty of corrupt practice specified in Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on account of his incurring expenditure in contravention of the provisions of Section 77 of the Act. According to the petitioner Bhanwarlal, the expenditure incurred by the returned candidate Ramdhan, in connection with the aforesaid election, exceeded the maximum limit authorised to be incurred by the notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT285(HC),1999(2)CHN107
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal Involves the question of the Jurisdiction of a single Judge, who has been given the determination to hear and dispose of arbitration matters, to entertain applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act.)2. The facts giving rise to the question are briefly stated. The respondent does the business of rendering radio paging services. It procures pagers from the manufactures and appoints distributors to sell or lease the pager units to the consumers. According to the appellant the respondent was one such distributor and that in terms of the agreements between the resondent and the appellant, the respondent was to pay lease rent to the appellant. It is the appellant's case that lease rent of several lakhs of rupees fell due and payable by the respondent to the appellant.3. In September 1996 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant In (T.S. No. 361 of 1996) before the Second Munsiff at Allpore pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1999J& K63
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal u nder Clause 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Chamber on 26th of August, 1997. The said order has permitted the respondent No. 1 to file additional written statements, with a prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Election Petition No. 4 of 1996 titled Ram Saroop v. Returning Officer, is pending trial under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein election of the appellant has been questioned on a number of grounds. After the filing of written statement by the appellant to the said Election Petition vide order dated 22-5-1997 on an oral request having been made on behalf of the respondent No. 1-pct it Loner in the Election Petition, he was permitted to file replica to the written statement of defen...
Tag this Judgment!