Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2007
Reported in : LC2007(2)13; 2007(34)PTC444(Del)
J.M. Malik, J. 1. This order shall decide the two appeals mentioned above which entail similar questions of facts and law. The controversy in these two appeals swirls around the question, 'is there any presumption in favor of the validity of the patent for grant of temporary injunction in favor of patentee.' The present appeals are directed against the orders of the learned Trial Court dated 7th February, 2007, wherein the Trial Court dismissed the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff/appellant, the applications filed by the defendants/ respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were permitted and ex parte injunction orders dated 6th October, 2006 were vacated. However, the defendants/respondents were directed to maintain accounts of the sales they make of the impugned product. The defendants/respondents were also directed to submit the statement of accounts after every three months in the court and to submit undertakings that they would pay the damages...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-22-2007
Reported in : 140(2007)DLT698
Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. The constitutional mandate for assuring the dignity of individual is contained in the very preamble of the Constitution of India. To live with dignity would take within its ambit legitimate expectation of the citizens of the country for being provided with good environment and health care. Unlike right to education, right to health and healthy environment has so far not been incorporated in the fundamental rights of the people of India. However, an obligation in the form of directive principle under Article 47 of the Constitution is casted upon the State to raising of standard of living of its people and improvement of public health among its primary duties. The State has to ensure that this obligation is not rendered nugatory by inaction or inadequate action on the part of the State and its instrumentalities. Leaving aside its dogmatic approach, it must ameliorate by taking recourse to policies and steps and by involving other appropriate forums to achieve the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-10-2007
Reported in : LC2007(3)192; 2007(35)PTC377(Del)
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. By this order I propose to deal with I.A. No. 9649/2006 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and I.A. No. 9648/2006, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the defendants.2. By the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, it is contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected since it does not disclose a cause of action; that the suit has not been filed by a duly authorised person, and; that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.3. I.A. No. 9648/2006 has been filed to say that defendant No. 1 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present suit and that he has been imp leaded as defendant No. 1 merely to avoid the proceedings being noticed by the defendants in the cause list and with a view to obtain an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction behind the back of the defendant No. 2 and 3.4. Taking up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC first, I proceed to deal with the objections that the plaint and the documents filed with ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-14-2007
Reported in : 2007(4)ARBLR300(Delhi); 146(2008)DLT404; 2007(99)DRJ641
Vipin Sanghi, J.1. In this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to as 'the Act' hereinafter), the preliminary objection raised by the respondents before me that needs to be determined is, whether Clause 9 of a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MOFS) dated 3.3.2000 entered into between the parties tantamount to an arbitration agreement. If it contains an Arbitration Agreement, as contended by the petitioners, the present petition would be maintainable, but if it does not contain an Arbitration Agreement as argued by the Respondents, the present petition would fail as not being maintainable.2. The facts giving rise to the present petition insofar as they are necessary to determine the preliminary issue may be noted. The Petitioner No. 1 and the Respondent No. 1 are brothers and the sons of Late Mr. L.P. Jaiswal. Further, Petitioner No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 are the wives of Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 respectively.3. Late Mr. L.P. Jai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Mar-20-2007
Reported in : LC2007(2)42
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. IA No. 10848/2006 (Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)IA No. 11160/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC BY THE DEFENDANT)IA No. 13971/2006 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC BY THE PLAINTIFF)1. The claim of the plaintiff of patent violation by the defendant in respect of moralized packaging film patent of the plaintiff has given rise to the present litigation.2. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the patent bearing No. 197823 in respect of the said moralized packaging films in pursuance to a patent granted on 12.04.2006 as per an application of the plaintiff dated 03.03.2004. The patent comprises of 21 claims of which there is a parent claim and there are twenty dependent claims depending directly or indirectly on the parent claim. The description of the invention as per the parent claim is as under:a multilayer, thermo formable, translucent food and pharmaceutical packaging film consisting of a core layer of 100-1000 microns thickness of food ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jun-04-2007
Reported in : 2007(35)PTC285(Del)
A.K. Sikri, J.1. There are two plaintiffs in this case who have filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants under Section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000 read with Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA. The plaintiff No. 2 namely M/s. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. is an Indian company. The plaintiff No. 1 claims ownership and possession to the proprietary know-how, innovative technology, intellectual property rights and trade secrets in creating the designs used for the manufacture of its products commonly known as Tupperware products. It is also stated that these products are the result of artistic work in the form of product drawings, mould drawings and moulds and thereforee, copyright is also claimed therein. The plaintiff No. 1 has consented and contractually granted to the plaintiff No. 2 the right to use its moulds to manufacture Tupperware products and also granted the right to use and ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-10-2007
Reported in : LC2007(2)396; 2007(35)PTC177(Del)
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.IA. Nos. 651/2007, 1366/2007 & 2611/20071. 'Jurisdiction' as Oliver Wendall Holmes said, 'whatever else or more it may mean, is jurisdictio, in its popular sense of authority to apply the law to the acts of men'. Ordinarily jurisdiction is exercised over defendants residing or carrying on business or personally working for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. With the growth of e-commerce and commercial activity over the world wide web, it has become possible for business to be conducted across the globe without actual presence in every place. The present case, inter alia, involves the question of jurisdiction in such a situation.2. The plaintiff company runs a Hindi news channel 'INDIA TV' which was launched in March 2004. It is stated that the channel is one of the leading Hindi news channels in India having popular programs such as 'Breaking News' and other programs such as India Beats, Jago India, Aap ki Adalat etc. 3. The plaintiff claims to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-31-2007
Reported in : LC2007(2)323; 2007(35)PTC59(Del)
Gita Mittal, J.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit originally seeking injunction against the defendants from infringing its registered trademarks and on grounds of dishonest passing off its products as those having an association with those of the plaintiff and damages. Along with the present suit, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which has been registered as I.A. No. 1879/2005. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant has also filed several applications from time to time including an application seeking rejection of the plaint (under Order 7 Rule 11) and return of the plaint (under Order 7 Rule 10) amongst others. The defendant has also filed an application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.2. By the present judgment, I propose to decide is No. 1879/2005, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and is No. 8252/2006 filed by the defendant under Section 124 of the Trademarks Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-26-2007
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
Decided on : Feb-27-2007
Reported in : (2007)211CTR(Del)600; 139(2007)DLT703; [2008]304ITR160(Delhi)
V.B. Gupta, J.1. Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as Act) against the impugned order dated 31st January, 2006 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in ITA No. 4778/Del/03 for the assessment year 2000-01. By the said order the claim made by the Appellant under Section 32(1)(iii) of the Act for write off of discarded/obsolete machinery amounting to Rs. 40,83,828/- was disallowed.2. The brief facts of the case are that Appellant-company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of floppy and other computer consumables. Till the close of the immediately preceding year relevant to assessment year 1999-2000, it had been manufacturing computer floppies. The plant and machinery installed in the financial year 1984-85 and 1994 had been extensively used by it for this purpose. As the technology in the field of computer consumables had advanced manifold since the installation of the plan...
Tag this Judgment!