Court : Delhi
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDERC.M. APPL No. 1695/2011Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of.WP (Civil) No. 801/2011 & CM APPL No. 1694/20111. An interesting question of law involving the interpretation of Section 11-B (1) and (4) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Act) and Rule 24 B of the Patents Rules 2003 (Rules) arises in this writ petition.2. With the consent of Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on advance notice for the Respondent, this petition has been heard finally.3. The Petitioner is a Corporation organized under the laws of Japan. It is stated that the Petitioner has the worlds top class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel where high workability, rust prevention performance and weld strength ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d February, 2017. CS(COMM) 29/2016 F.HOFFMANN-LA-ROCHE LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. N. Mahabir, Ms. Prachi Agarwal & Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advs. Versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Mr. Vikramjeet, Ms. Priyam Lizmary Cherian & Ms. Neeti Aggarwal, Advs. CS(COMM) 946/2016 AND F HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. N. Mahabir, Ms. Prachi Agarwal & Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advs. Versus DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Anusuya Nigam & Mr. Tushar Bhatnagar, Advs. for D-1. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Mr. Vikramjeet, Ms. Priyam Lizmary Cherian & Ms. Neeti Aggarwal, Advs. for D-2. CS(COMM) Nos.29/2016 & 946/2016 Page 1 of 17 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O.A. No.13/2017 in CS(COMM) No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:2. d February, 2017. CS(COMM) 29/2016 F.HOFFMANN-LA-ROCHE LTD. & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. N. Mahabir, Ms. Prachi Agarwal & Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advs. Versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Mr. Vikramjeet, Ms. Priyam Lizmary Cherian & Ms. Neeti Aggarwal, Advs. CS(COMM) 946/2016 AND F HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. N. Mahabir, Ms. Prachi Agarwal & Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advs. Versus DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Anusuya Nigam & Mr. Tushar Bhatnagar, Advs. for D-1. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gaurav Barathi, Mr. Vikramjeet, Ms. Priyam Lizmary Cherian & Ms. Neeti Aggarwal, Advs. for D-2. CS(COMM) Nos.29/2016 & 946/2016 Page 1 of 17 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O.A. No.13/2017 in CS(COMM) No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:16. 01.2019 Pronounced on:08.04.2019 + W.P.(C) 9996/2015 MANIPAL ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION ........ Petitioner Through: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Vikrant Pachnand, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Through: Sh. Vikram Jetly, Advocate for UOI. ........ RESPONDENTS CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J.% 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 30.07.2015 whereby the petitioner has been denied approval under Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Income tax Act 1961 (hereinafter, "the Act"). Facts and Impugned Order 2. The petitioner is a registered trust formed on 19.05.1993 and claims to undertake educational and research activities. It was granted registration as a deemed university with effect from 03.07.1993. It applied for approval under Section 35 (1) (ii) of the Act on 23.06.2014.3. The petitioner's application was rejected by the impugned order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 147(2008)DLT670; 2008(101)DRJ126
Gita Mittal, J.1. These two writ petitions raise similar questions of law and fact and consequently are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The writ petitions were filed against the New Delhi Municipal Council created under the provisions of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and performing functions there under.3. It is necessary to consider certain essential facts leading up to the filing of the writ petitions which are noticed hereafter. So far as the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7728/2007 is concerned, on or about 20th February, 1986 the NDMC had allotted a kiosk to the petitioner No. 1 - South Delhi Medicos in the year 1987. Allotment of this kiosk was transferred to the sole name of the petitioner No. 2 - Ms. Shashi Bala Gupta, by a letter of allotment bearing No. D/212/Estate dated 31st January, 2006 on terms and conditions set out in the license deed executed between the parties on 20th February, 1986. It is an admitted position that the license granted to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :29. 05.2019 + O.M.P. (COMM.) 207/2019 INDIAN PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Raman Kapur, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Bhaskar Mishra, Mr.Manish Kumar Choudhary, Ms.Kritika Khurana, Advs. versus SIMPLEX INFRASTRUCTURES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Nachiketa Goyal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) IA73882019 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. OMP(Comm.) 207/2019 & IA73892019 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 23.01.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 18.12.2013 executed between the parties. O.M.P.(Comm.) No.207/2019 Page 1 2. The State of Jharkhand had granted a mining lease for f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)413; 80(1999)DLT3; (2000)ILLJ227Del
K. Ramamoorthy, J. 1. The petitioner-Union has prayed for the following reliefs:(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the casual workmen mentioned above with retrospective effect i.e. from the date they got their first appointment. (ii) Direct respondents to follow the directive of equal pay for equal work and to pay the casual workmen accordingly. 2. The petitioner is praying for regularisation of the service of the casual labourers, who according to the petitioner-Union, have been working with the first respondent since 1985 as operators, loaders and peons. According to the petitioner-Union the nature of the work done by the workers is of permanent nature. The petitioner-Union has given a list of workmen who according to petitioner-Union are entitled to regularisation and to payment as permanent workmen on the basis of equal pay for equal work. It is stated in paragraph 7(iv) of the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~31 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5590/2015 & CM No.10090/2018 % Date of decision :23. d April, 2018 SHAMNAD BASHEER ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari and Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for R-1/UOI Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv.with Mrs. Saya Chaudhary, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Prateek Sehrawat, Mr. A. Joyaraj and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. for Intervenor-Ericsson Mr. Rajiv Kr. Choudhry, Adv. for Intervenor-TEMA Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer and Mr. Nishanth Kadur, Advs. for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition is concerned with issues relating to the working of patents under the Patents Act, 1970. It appears that concerned with W.P.(C)No5590/2015 Page 1 of 4 the several issues relating to Section 146 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) read with Rule 131 of Patents Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. 1. The three appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) raise a common issue of law and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. ITA No.315/2010 was admitted vide order dated 27th January, 2011 with the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that know-how, business contacts, business information, etc. acquired as part of the slump sale described as „goodwill‟were not entitled for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act?” 3. To appreciate the question of law involved in the present appeal the relevant facts necessary for disposal of ITA No.315/2010 are enumerated as below:- (i) The assessee Company is presently engaged in transmission and distribution business of power. The business involves, inter alia, designing, manufacturing, supplying, installation, testi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. W.P.(C) No.6968/2011. 1. The petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 established with the aim and objective inter alia to promote the study and practice of radio-diagnosis, ultrasound, CT, MRI and other imaging modalities and, having more than 8600 radiologists and imaging experts having recognised post-graduate degrees in the field of radio-diagnosis and imaging recognised by the Medical Council of India (MCI) as its members. The petition is filed contending: (i) that to overcome the growing problem of sex-selective termination of pregnancy of female foetuses after determining sex of the foetus by using pre-natal sex determination techniques, the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sect Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act) was enacted with the objective of prohibition of sex selection and for regulation of misuse of pre-natal diagnostic techniques and the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagn...
Tag this Judgment!