Court : Delhi
$~OS-9 * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:15. 12.2017 CS(OS) 3132/2014, CC712015, I.A. 20105/2014 and I.A.14072/2015 MERCK SHARP AND DOHME CORP & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Mr.Tusha Malhotra and Ms.Udita M.Patro, Advs. versus VINOD JADHAV & ORS ..... Defendants Through Mr.Aditya Kumar, proxy counsel for Mr.Vinod Jadhav, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(Oral) I.A. 20105/2014 1. This application is filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants so as to restrain the defendants from infringing the registered patent in respect to SITAGLIPTIN.2. Brief facts of this application are that the plaintiffs are the registered patentee for drug SITAGLIPTIN having an Indian Patent No.209816. The said drug was approved for sale in the Indian Market on 28.03.2008. Thereafter Plaintiff No.1 is selling the said drug in India under the trademark JANUVIA and J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1997IAD(Delhi)420; 64(1996)DLT572; 1996(39)DRJ512
R.C. Lahoti, J.(1) Whether an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condensation of delay in filing an appeal must accompany the memo of appeal? If the application is not so filed does it cease to be maintainable merely because it was filed a few days after the filing of the appeal? These are the questions of law of day to day recurrence, which arise for decision in this appeal.(2) The order of injunction which is under appeal was passed on 24.5.96. On 25.5.96 an application for certified copy of the order was made. Copy was ready on 28.5.96. The last day of filing the appeal was 27.6.1996. The appeal was filed on 2nd July, 1996. It was not accompanied by an application seeking condensation of delay in filing the appeal. The registry raised a few objections including one of the appeal being barred by time and brought it to the notice of the appellant's counsel. The appeal was returned to the appellant's counsel for removing the defects and refiling the same within o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IA 18636/2013 1. By this order, I will decide the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the plea of the defendant that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain this suit. 2. The Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing/passing off the trade mark; copyright of the plaintiff, unfair competition; damages and delivery up etc. 3. Suffice to state that the trademark of the plaintiff is Officers Choice , whereas the defendant s is regular choice . 4. According to the plaintiff, the trade mark Officer s Choice was coined and adopted during the year 1988 by the predecessor in rights, title and interest of the plaintiff. As per the demerger, transfer and vesting of the liquor business of M/s. BDA Pvt. Ltd with the plaintiff on a going concern basis vide Composite Scheme of Arrangement duly approved by order of the High Court, Bombay dated 23rd February, 2007, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1973Delhi24; 8(1972)DLT285
V.S. Deshpande, J.(1) The appellant's building was requisitioned by the Government under section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and a sum of Rs. 3212.50 was offered to the appellant as compensation per month for the use of the building. As the appellant did not agree to accept the said amount, the compensation payable to the appellant was determined by Shri G. R. Luthra (Judge, Small Causes Court, Delhi) acting as arbitrator under section 8 of the Act at Rs. 4,658.00 per month. In the appeal against the award of the arbitrator, V. D. Misra, J. of this Court increased' the amount of compensation to Rs. 6,423.00 per month under section 11 of the Act. The Government was also ordered to spend a sum of Rs. 6,423.00 per year for the maintenance and repairs of the building.(2) Limitation for a further appeal was as follows: -(A)Appeal to a Division Bench of this Court under clause 10 of the Letters Patent - 30 days; and (b) Appeal to the Supreme Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2004)(97)ECC480
1. The issue involved in this appeal relates to the availability of benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 to the C.T. Scan Machine imported by M/s. C.T. Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd. 2 Shri A.K. Jain, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported one Computerised Axial Tomography Scanner and a spare C.T.X-Ray Tube and availed the benefit of Notification No. 64/88-Cus. under Bill of Entry dated 24-7-91; that a show cause notice dated 17-9-98 was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs to show cause as to why goods imported by them should not be confiscated and why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order, has confiscated the impugned goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 25 lakh and appropriate duty and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakh on the Appellants On the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions specified in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ˜Act') against the impugned order dated 3rd October 2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ˜ITAT') in ITA No. 1280/Del/2002 for the Assessment Year ( ˜AY') 1998-99. Question of law 2. While admitting this appeal on 1st February 2006 the Court framed the following question of law for determination: Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that receipt of Rs. 6080.95 lakhs by the Assessee as compensation on termination of joint-venture agreement was not taxable as income under the Head Capital Gains'? Background Facts 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Assessee, HCL Infosystems Limited ( ˜HIL'), which was initially incorporated as HCL Limited under the Companies Act, 1956 on 17th April 1986, was engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of computers and services in India. At that stage most of the computer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:24. 10.2016 + O.M.P. (COMM.) 372/2016 & IA No.9484/2016 RAIL LAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ........ Petitioner versus ..... Respondent BHAGWATI RAIL INFRA PVT. LTD. Advocates who appeared in this case: For the... Petitioner For the Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU : Mr Amit Kumar and Mr Shaurya Sahay. : Mr Arunav Patnaik and Ms Bhabna Das. VIBHU BAKHRU, J JUDGMENT1 The petitioner, Rail Land Development Authority (hereinafter RLDA), has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 30.04.2016 (hereafter the impugned award) passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter 'the Tribunal') constituted by Mr. Chander Parkash, Mr. M.R. Garg and Mr. S.P. Mehta (presiding). By the impugned award, the Tribunal has adjudicated the disputes raised by Bhagwati Rail Infra Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter BRIPL) a company incorporated und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON:12. 04.2017 FAO (OS) 107/2017, CM APPL.13603-13605/2017 M/S OVERNITE EXPRESS LTD. THR ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ..... Appellants Through: Mr. T.K. Ganju, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Upadhyaya and Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates. Versus KANWAR SINGH PRADHAN (DECEASED) THR LRS. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.(OPEN COURT) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting its petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015 (hereafter the Act). The main or rather the only ground urged to say that the award was patently and manifestly illegal was that the learned Arbitral Tribunal ignored the mandate of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.2. The parties had entered into a registered lease deed on 31.12.2004, for a period of 21 years; this was in respect of basemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: Date of decision: August 04, 2017 July 13, 2017 W.P. (C) 9306/2015 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr.S.Sukumaran, Mr.Anand Sukumar and Mr.Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Gaurav Sarin with Ms.Abha Malhotra, Mr.Ajitesh K., Advocates for UOI/R1. Mr. Asheesh Jain, Senior Standing Counsel Tax Department/R2 with Mr.Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocate. Income for CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. The... Petitioner-Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. is a leading automobile company in India. It has two Research & Development Centres (R&D Centres), one at Gurgaon and one at Rohtak, Haryana. The question that arises in this writ petition is Whether the... Petitioner is entitled to deduction under Section 35 (2AB) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. h March, 2019 Date of decision:10. h May, 2019 SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD ..... Plaintiff CS (COMM) 622/2018 & I.A. 12663/2014 Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Devyati Nath and Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Advocates (M:98919. 9028). AJANTA PHARMA LTD ..... Defendant Through: Mr Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, versus Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Afzal B. Khan and Ms. Suhrita Majundar, Advocates (M:98818. 0037). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J.1. Is the test for infringement and passing off for nutraceutical products the same as the test applicable for pharmaceuticals?.2. The dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the present case is in respect of two products used by patients of age related dimness of vision and diabetic retinopathy. They are sold under the trademarks GLOEYE and GLOTAB. Both are ocular medicines. Since they contain plant extracts, they are termed as nutraceuticals under Section 22...
Tag this Judgment!