Court : Delhi
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h January, 2018. CS(COMM) 1683/2016 UNILIN BEHEER B.V. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro and Mr. Shamim Nooreyezdan, Advs. Versus BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Hari Subramaniam and Mr. Sanuj Das, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.15331/2017 (of defendant u/S151CPC) 1. On 20th December, 2017, the following order was made: 1. The defendant / applicant seeks stay of proceedings in this suit for infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs, contending that the term of the patent has expired and the defendant / applicant, prior to institution of this suit, had approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 for revocation of the patent. The counsel for the plaintiff appears on advance 2. notice.3. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant / applicant, whether there is any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 35(1988)DLT34; 1988(15)DRJ19
S.S. Chadha, J. (1) Shri Ram Jethmalani, the respondent in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) is the plaintiff in a libel action instituted by him in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England, being No. 1983-J No. 6467, against one Shri Swraj Paul of London. The cause of action is alleged to have arisen out of statements made by said Shri Swraj Paul in London to the correspondents of 'The Hindustan Times' and 'The Daily' which appeared in August 28,1983 issue of the former and September 1, 1983 issue of the latter. Shri Swraj Paul has made a counter-claim arising out of respondent's statement appearing in the August 30, 1983 issue of 'Indian Express'. During the course of the said litigation in England, the respondent was called upon to furnish particulars of certain allegations made by the respondent. According to the respondent the detailed particulars are available in the statements and documents forming part of the record of an investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Pradeep Nandrajog, J. and Mukta Gupta, J. 1. Though at first blush the plot and premise of the Roche Vs. Cipla dispute appears to be straightforward “ Roche claims that on March 31, 1991, it filed an application for grant of patent in USA pertaining to Erlotinib Hydrochloride, resulting in grant of patent US 498 on August 05, 1998. During pendency of its application in USA, on March 13, 1996 it filed an application in India for grant of patent for the same molecule which was granted to it vide IN 774 on February 23, 2007. The marketable physical form of the molecule comprised polymorph A and B. Further research revealed that polymorph B was more thermodynamic and as per Roche would qualify for enhanced efficacy and thus on November 09, 2000 it applied for grant of patent for polymorph B of Erlotinib Hydrochloride in USA resulting in grant of patent US 221. Similar application filed in India on February 06, 2002 i.e. DEL 507 was rejected. As per Roche, IN 774 granted in February 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~OS-20 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:24. 01.2019 CS(COMM) 78/2017 DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS NETHERLANDS B.V & ANR. Through Mr.Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms.Nancy Roy and Ms.Shreya Sethi, Advs. ..... Plaintiffs versus SINOPHARM WEIQIDA PHARMACEUTICAL CO (WQD) & ANR. ..... Defendants Through Mr.Jayant Mehta, Ms.Rajeshwari H and Mr.Tahir A., Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) IA Nos. 13959/2018 1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 2A CPC seeking an order holding defendant No.1 guilty of contempt of court for wilfully violating the order of this court dated 20.04.2017. Other reliefs are also sought.2. The present suit is filed for permanent injunction to restrain infringement of the patent, rendition of accounts and damages. This court on 30.01.2017 in IA No.1225/2017 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC CS(COMM) 78/2017 Page 1 of 5 noted that defendant No.1 is a Chinese entity which is stated to be inf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1985)(22)ELT844TriDel
1. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Limited is a public company limited by shares and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and dealing in Ayurvedic medicines/drugs and other allied products. Besides manufacturing Ayurvedic drugs/medicines, they also manufacture Surmas like Himalaya Surma, Moti Surma etc. and also Dant Manjans like Dant Manjan Lal, Dant Manjan Black, Dant Manjan White.2. Prior to March 1, 1975 'Dant Manjan Lal' manufactured by the appellant was considered to be a patent or proprietary medicine falling under Item 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, but considered as not excisable to duty by virtue of the express exclusion in the description of the Tariff Item itself in favour of "medicines" which are exclusively Ayurvedic, Unani Sidha or Homoeopathic.3. Immediately after March 1, 1975, when a residuary item being Item No. 68 came to be introduced into the Central Excise Tariff Schedule for "All other goods, not elsewhere ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1994)LC571Tri(Delhi)
1. The appellant, importer, is aggrieved with the order of the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Importer had imported "Cat Scanner Equipment" and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dt.1-3-1988. The Bill of Entry disclosed the value of the said item at Rs. 1,40,22,787.00 CIF. Alongwith the Bill of Entry, the importers had attached the following documents : (i) Invoice No. HH-001/90 dt. 24-3-1990 of M/s. Hightech Health Equipment Co., Hongkong. (ii) Insurance Certificate No. 15080322 (1064) dt. 30-3-1990 indicating the reference No. SDL/HH/29/80 relating to the goods imported. (v) Order confirmation No. CH. 001/90 dt. 14-3-1990 by M/s. High Tech Health Equipments Co., Hongkong. (vi) Packing list of M/s. High Tech Health Equipment Co., Hongkong relating to invoice No. NH-001/90 dt. 24-3-1990 indicating importer's reference number as SDL/HH/29/30. (vii) NMIC No. I/CC/5/88/397 dt. 25-5-1988 endorsed on application No. NMIC/1-88 dt. 15-4-1988 for CT-SE 600 Syner view Scann...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1973Delhi177
D.K. Kapur, J. (1) The America Lock Company is a partnership firm which carries on business as a manufacturer of locks of various types. Among other products, it manufactures cycle frame locks of horse-shoe shape for locking bicycles. Similarly, Western Engineering Company, is another partnership firm carrying on business as a manufacturer of locks, which also manufactures bicycle locks. The latter firm, i.e.. Western Engineering Company applied for the registration of a design of horse-shoe shape cycle lock used for locking bicycles, under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. This design was registered and allotted the number 125728 on 25th May, 1965. The former firm, i.e., America Lock Company also applied under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, for the registration of 'he design of a somewhat similar horse-shoe cycle lock for locking bicycles. Its design was also registered on 25th March, 1967, the application having been made on 29th October, 1966. The number allotted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~03. * + % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS(COMM) 197/2016 Judgment dated 18th October, 2016 BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB HOLDINGS IRELAND & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through : Mr.Praveen Anand, Mr.Nischal Anand and Mr.Aman Taneja, Advs. versus CORAM: SANJAY JAIN & ANR Through ..... Defendants HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL) 1. Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of their patent registered under No.203937, delivery up, damages etc. against the defendants.2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that summons in the suit and notice in the application for stay were directed to be issued vide order dated 8.10.2015, when an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Counsel further submits that in the order dated 14.3.2016, the learned Joint Registrar had noticed that the defendants have been duly served, however, since the written statement was not filed, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~1. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:08. 04.2017 Judgment delivered on:08. 05.2017 % W.P. (C) No.3057/2017 and C.M. No.13372/2017 SAROJ ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Agnani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ajay Digpaul, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Mr.Abhay Mr.Bhanu Sanoriya, Mr. Varun Garg & Mr.Rajesh Mishra, Advocates. Verma, Versus DELHI STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing Counsel and Mr.Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramesh Chander, Returning Officer (Ward 3E), in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI JUDGMENT VIPIN SANGHI, J.1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the Returning Officer/Scrutinising Officer (referred to as the RO/SO) for Ward No.0001E, 0002E, 0003E and 0004E of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC). By the impugned order, the RO/SO has rejected the nomination paper f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:17. 07.2018 + W.P.(C) 11802/2016 and CM Nos. 8215/2017, 8217/2017 and 19029/2017 MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : : Mr Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr Navpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Mr Salil Seth, Mr Pradeep Chhindra and Mr Adhesh Sharma. Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Prateek Dhanda, Mr Waize Ali Noor, Ms Ruchi Jain and Mr Saeed Qadri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company and has filed the present petition impugning the Standing Order No.1687 (E) dated 09.05.2016 (hereafter the impugned notification) passed by the Assistant Director, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereafter NPPA) to the extent that it includes the formulation, TRD Contin 100 mg. tablet CR10(hereafter the Formulation), within the scope of th...
Tag this Judgment!