Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-2013
..... public.43. justice ayyangar submitted a comprehensive report on patent law revision in september 1959 and the new law of patent, namely, the patents act, 1970, came to be enacted mainly based on the recommendations of the report, and came into force on april 20, 1972, replacing the patents and designs act, 1911.44. section 1 of the new act gave it its name and territorial extent and provided that it would come into effect on such date as the central government may appoint, by notification in the official gazette. section ..... patent. we hold and find that imatinib mesylate is a known substance from the zimmermann patent itself. not only is imatinib mesylate known as a substance in the zimmermann patent, but its pharmacological properties are also known in the zimmermann patent and in the article published in the cancer research journal referred to above. the consequential finding, therefore, is that imatinib mesylate does not qualify the test of invention as laid down in section 2(1)(j) and section 2(1)(ja) of the patents act, 1970 ..... defined by the particular claim or claims of the patent or patent application. this is consistent with the general principle of patent law that the claim defines the invention for purposes of both patentability and infringement. 145. nevertheless, both mr. andhyarujina and mr. subramanium strenuously argued that the coverage or the claim, and the disclosure or the teaching, have different parameters in a patent, and that the former may have an extended .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-01-2013
..... public.43. justice ayyangar submitted a comprehensive report on patent law revision in september 1959 and the new law of patent, namely, the patents act, 1970, came to be enacted mainly based on the recommendations of the report, and came into force on april 20, 1972, replacing the patents and designs act, 1911.44. section 1 of the new act gave it its name and territorial extent and provided that it would come into effect on such date as the central government may appoint, by notification in the official gazette. section ..... patent. we hold and find that imatinib mesylate is a known substance from the zimmermann patent itself. not only is imatinib mesylate known as a substance in the zimmermann patent, but its pharmacological properties are also known in the zimmermann patent and in the article published in the cancer research journal referred to above. the consequential finding, therefore, is that imatinib mesylate does not qualify the test of invention as laid down in section 2(1)(j) and section 2(1)(ja) of the patents act, 1970 ..... defined by the particular claim or claims of the patent or patent application. this is consistent with the general principle of patent law that the claim defines the invention for purposes of both patentability and infringement.145. nevertheless, both mr. andhyarujina and mr. subramanium strenuously argued that the coverage or the claim, and the disclosure or the teaching, have different parameters in a patent, and that the former may have an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-18-2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9488 OF2013(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.13410 of 2012) M/s. Arcot Textile Mills Ltd. ... Appellant Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No.2230 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the judgment and order dated 21.4.2011 passed in W.P. No.7046 of 2008 by the learned single Judge holding that the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity the Act) requiring the appellant to remit a sum of Rs.94,27,334/- towards interest under Section 7Q of the Act for belated remittances, was to be assailed in appeal before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (for short the tribunal) and, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-24-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2867 OF2012Dr. Balram Prasad Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.692 of 2012 Advanced Medicare & Research Institute Ltd. Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2866 of 2012 Dr. Kunal Saha Appellant Vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.731 of 2012 Dr. Baidyanath Haldar Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents AND CIVIL APPEAL No.858 of 2012 Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee Appellant Vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.The Civil Appeal Nos.2867, 731 and 858 of 2012 are filed by the appellant-doctors, Civil Appeal No.692 of 2012 is filed by the appellant-AMRI Hospital and Civil Appeal No.2866 of 2012 is filed by the claimant-appellant Dr. Kunal Saha (hereinafter referred to as the claimant), questioning the correctness of the impugned judgment and order d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-2013
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. 1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks a direction from this Court for appointment of the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator (Presiding Arbitrator) in the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties. 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the law of Hong Kong having its project office in India and one of the base offices at Mumbai. The respondent is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jivan Bharti Tower-2, 124, Circus New Delhi. 3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner has filed the present case only to bring unnecessary litigation. The arbitration petition is an abuse of process of law and the claims made are barred ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.6 OF 201.Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd. ...Petitioner VERSUS Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Respondent JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. This petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks a direction from this Court for appointment of the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the respondent and also appointment of third Arbitrator (Presiding Arbitrator) in the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes arises between the parties.2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated and registered under the law of Hong Kong having its project office in India and one of the base offices at Mumbai. The respondent is a Corporation registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Jivan Bharti Tower-2, 124, Circus New Delhi.3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-12-2013
REPORTABLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.590 OF 201.Manohar Lal Sharma .. Petitioner Versus M.C.I. and others ....Respondents With I.A.No.2 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28480 of 2012 JUDGMENT K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these cases, concerned with the legal validity of the approval granted by the Medical Council of India (for short the MCI) dated 15th July, 2013 for renewal of permission for admission of the third batch of 150 M.B.B.S. students at Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital (for short the College) for the academic year 2013-14. The above mentioned College was established during the year 2011-12 and it admitted 150 M.B.B.S. students for that year. Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought for the academic year 2012-13. The MCI carried out an inspection on 19/20th April, 2012 and noticed various deficiencies and, in addition, one fake faculty was also presented before the Inspection Team. Copy of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-17-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 OF 201.Jatya Pal Singh & Ors. ...Appellants VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3933 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.4619 of 2011 M.P. Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.425 OF 201.Vijay Thakur ...Appellant VERSUS VSNL & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (C) No.689 OF 200.Videsh Sanchar Nigam Scheduled Castes/Tribes Employees Welfare Samiti (Regd.) & Anr. ...Petitioners VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5740 OF 201.Ram Prakash ...Appellant VERSUS Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J.1. Leave granted in SLP© No.4619 of 2011.2. This judgment will dispose of a group of appeals, details of which are given hereunder, as they raise only one question of law : Proceedings before the Bombay High Court :- 3. Writ Petition No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-21-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.35821 OF2013(CC186662013) E.S.I.C. Medical Officers Association Petitioner Versus E.S.I.C. & Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Delay condoned.2. We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether medical doctors discharging functions of medical officers i.e. treating patients in Employees State Insurance Corporations dispensaries/hospitals are workmen within the meaning of expression contained in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act).3. Petitioner is an Association of medical officers employed in the ESCI after the year 1974. The Association raised a claim for ESIC allowance of Rs.200/- per month on the ground that they were performing the same duties as those by doctors who are getting the said allowance and, therefore, could not be discriminated against. The Central Government referred the above dispute on 19.11.1992 for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-04-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5117 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.11107 OF 2012.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS VERUS M/S. SWISS GARNIER LIFE SCIENCES & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5118 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.11108 OF 2012.UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS VERUS M/S. MARS THERAPEUTICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.Leave granted. These appeals are preferred by the Union of India and others against the common judgment dated 15th March, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA No.634 of 2010 with LPA No.790 of 2010. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench affirmed the order dated 19th May, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)No.10277 with W.P.(C)No.12958 of 2009 and dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants.2. The respondents filed the aforesaid two writ petitions challenging the...
Tag this Judgment!