Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ 49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2405/2013 Judgment pronounced on 28th May, 2015 % UNITED PHOSPHORUS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.C.M. Lal, Ms.Nancy, Ms.Rajeshwari H. and Ms.Aparna, Advs versus AJAY GARG AND ANOTHER ..... Defendant Through: Ms.Pratibha M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sushant Singh, Ms.Subha Shiny and Mr.P.C. Arya, Advocates for defendant no.2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J I.A.13409/2014 & I.A.1372/2014 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos.190476 and 202013 unfair competition, delivery up, rendition of accounts, damages, etc.2. While issuing summons in the suit, the defendants were restrained from marketing, selling, distributing, advertising export offering for sale and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any product that infringes the claims of the aforesaid Patents.3. Two applications are being taken up for hearing, being I....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad694
Mack, J.1. This, is a Letters Patent Appeal admitted by a learned Bench of this court against C. M. A. No. 522 of 1952, against an order by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. dismissing an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge Madras, refusing to stay O. S. No. 405 of 1952 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940.2. The facts are shortly these. Appellant and the defendant in the suit is the South India Co-operative Insurance Society. Ltd.. Madras. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent as a nominee of an insurance policy taken but with, this society by his late brother, Mr. Viyyanna, an advocate, who died on 10-4-1949. The policy was a double endowment policy No. 2190 dated 9-4-1935, under which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was payable if the assured died within a period of 15 years from the date of the policy. An enhanced sum of Rs. 2,000 would become payable if he survived this period.The policy matured on 8-4-1950 and the last premium was payable on 9-1-1950. The Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal77
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. This appeal is out of an order passed on 7th Jan. 1977 under Section 88(3) of the Patents Act, 1970. In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this appeal, it is necessary to refer to certain facts. Patent No. 77950 was granted to the appellant Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. in respect of an invention of a catalyst which, if used, in the steam reforming of hydrocarbons achieved results which were not, according to the appellant, possible before the invention. The said invention, as the patent certificate stated, related to the catalyst suitable for use in hydrocarbons steam reforming process. In respect of the said patent, the appellant had claimed:1. A catalyst composition for use in steam reforming of hydrocarbons in the form of discrete particles comprising between 3.0% and 80% by weight of nickel calculated as nickel oxide and from 97% to 20% by weight of refractory oxide material calcul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1974Mad261
1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 (A.A.) are appellants.2. The suit is for an order (1) that the agreement dated nth July, 1962, between, the parties providing for a reference to-arbitration in respect of matters in dispute to which the agreement relates be filed into Court; (2) determining the questions of difference between the parties-to which the agreement dated nth July, 1962, applies and (3) appointing an arbitrator with a direction to proceed, with the arbitration in respect of matters-in dispute between the parties and pass an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 136, Jessore Road, Calcutta. The second defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 51, Canal East Road, Calcutta. The Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff entered into an agreement dated nth July, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the following applications: a) IA No.15781/2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). b) IA No.3085/2009 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for restraining infringement of copyright, damages etc. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright in the repertoire of songs, cinematograph films, sound recordings etc. The plaintiff claims to have over 20000 Hindi Non film songs and around 50000 songs in regional languages. 3. The plaintiff further states that the business of the plaintiff which is film producing, music distribution etc is largely dependant upon the exploitation of its copyright. The said copyright exploitation enables the plaintiff to sustain its creative activities thereby giving opportunities to many talents including composers, artists, singers, etc. The plaintiff states that the monetary gains arising from copyright exploitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009.NOVARTIS AG .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2728 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.32706 OF 2009.NATCO PHARMA LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2717-2727 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 12984-12994 OF 2013.SLP(C)../2011 CC Nos.6667-6677 M/S CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION .APPELLANT Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?. How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)?. Does the product for which the appellant claims patent qualify as a new product which comes by through an invention that has a feature that involves technical advance over the existing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~34 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h August, 2019 CS (COMM) 229/2019 and I.As. 11304/2019, 11305/2019 NOVARTIS AG & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Mr. Rohan Krishnan & Dr. Shilpa Arora, Advocates (M:98736. 3089) Versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rajeshwari H., Mr. Swapnil Gaur and Mr. Kumar Chitranshu, Advocates (M:98979. 5254). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) The Defendant has filed two applications one under Order VII, Rule 1. 11 CPC and the second one under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC seeking dismissal of the present suit and vacation/suspension of the interim injunction operating in the present case on the ground that the patent granted in favour of the Plaintiffs has been revoked in the post grant opposition proceedings. The Defendant relies on the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1973)2MLJ424
V.V. Raghavan, J. 1. The defendants in O.S. No. 6 of 1972 (A.A.) are appellants.2. The suit is for an order (1) that the agreement dated nth July, 1962, between, the parties providing for a reference to-arbitration in respect of matters in dispute to which the agreement relates be filed into Court; (2) determining the questions of difference between the parties-to which the agreement dated nth July, 1962, applies and (3) appointing an arbitrator with a direction to proceed, with the arbitration in respect of matters-in dispute between the parties and pass an award in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 136, Jessore Road, Calcutta. The second defendant is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its Registered Office at No. 51, Canal East Road, Calcutta. The Crompton Engineering Company (Madras) Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff entered into an agreement...
Tag this Judgment!