Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7843 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9391 of 2019) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. .Appellant(s) Versus K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.Leave granted.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Commercial Court Suit No.41/2018 filed before the Commercial Court at Vadodara. The respondents herein are arrayed as the defendants to the suit. The respondents on being notified in the suit had appeared and filed the written statement inter alia contending that the suit is not maintainable as the dispute involved cannot be termed 1 as a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act, 2015 for short). In view of such contention, the respondents herein also filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking an order to return the plaint to be presented in the Court in which the suit shoul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC256; [1962]3SCR497
Shah, J.1. A dispute arising under a contract relating to the supply of solidified fuel between Messrs. Mohindra Supply Company - hereinafter referred to as the respondents - and the Governor-General of India in Council was referred to arbitration of two arbitrators. On March 19, 1946, the arbitrators made and published an award directing the Governor-General to pay to the respondents Rs. 47,250/- with interest at 3% from July 17, 1944, till payment. This award was filed in the court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi. The Governor-General applied for an order setting aside the award on certain grounds which for the purposes of this appeal are not material. The Subordinate Judge refused to set aside the award on the grounds set up and rejected the application. Against the order refusing to set aside the award, the Governor-General preferred to the Lahore High Court an appeal which after the setting up of the Dominions of India and Pakistan was transferred to the Circuit Bench...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1985Delhi685
Sultan Singh, J.(1) On 13-6-1977, notice was given to Mr. Mangat Ram Chaudhary, proprietor of M/s. Chaudhary Plastic Works, defendant to show cause why his property should not be attached, and he be detained in civil prison under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure (as inserted by Act 104 of 1976). This order will dispose of the said show cause notice.(2) The plaintiff was granted patent No. 125113 of 1970 with respect to a method of producing a printed film and a printed film produced thereby from 35 mm cinematograph film strips in the shape of a circle or disc which is capable of being used in a specially adapted viewer. The images of this disc lie on a path defining a circle. The claims as mentioned in the said patent are as under : '(I)A process of production a printed film comprising the steps of exposing in a spaced relation a plurality of images on a length of a negative film, said length being twice the height of said film, said images lying on a path defining a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(5)CTC97; LC2008(3)431; (2008)6MLJ1117; 2008(38)PTC341(Mad)
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.1. The orders passed herein will govern the disposal of O.S.A. Nos. 263 and 283 of 2006.For the sake of convenience, the array of parties as referred in C.S. No. 448 of 2006, is adopted here also.The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Original Side Appeals are as follows:One A.R. Safiullah, sole Proprietor and trading as S.A. Safiullah & Company having office at Chennai as well as Pudukottai, has instituted a suit in O.S. No. 488 of 2006 on the file of this Court against Daniel, Proprietor of M/s. Jayam Traders-the first Defendant, M/s. Jayam Industries represented by its partner Tmt. Indira Daniel-second Defendant, M.A. Rajapudeen, Proprietor M/s. Shalimar Traders-third defendant and Mariyappan, trading as Sivagami Agencies, Sivakasi-the fourth Defendant praying for a judgment and decree for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered patent under No. 198079 in respect of 'food-grade l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT865
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The souring of relationship between joint venture partner's has given rise to the present dispute where the respondent is aggrieved by the alleged infringement of its patents by the appellant. A suit was thus filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for mandatory injunction from manufacturing and advertising as its own and selling the products of respondent for which respondent has registered patents and design, in India or any where in the world for the product range of electric contractors and accessories known as the D2 range. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Judge allowing interim application of the respondent is No. 8522/99 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order dated 27.11.2000 dismissing is No. 6504/2000 filed by the appellant after the judgment had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on the injunction application. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5152; 2004(5)CTC209; JT2004(8)SC464; (2005)1MLJ105(SC); RLW2005(1)SC19; 2004(8)SCALE601; (2004)11SCC672
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Interpretation of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') vis-a-vis Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Madras is in question in these appeals.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. Although these appeals involve common questions of law, the tactual matrix of the matter would be noticed from Civil Appeal No. 689 of 1998.3. The First Respondent herein filed a suit against the Appellant herein in the Court of II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore which was marked as O.S. No. 403 of 1974, The said suit was decreed on or about 15.4.1976. An execution petition was filed by the First Respondent-decree holder for executing the said decree. In the said execution proceeding for realization of the decretal amount the property belonging to the Appellant herein was put to auction. The validity of the said auction came to be questioned by the Appellant by filing an Execution Application on or about 8.10.1979 praying therein for setting aside the court auc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
GENERAL 1. These are four Notices of Motion under Order 39 Rule 2A and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ). All are filed by the Plaintiff ( CTR ), alleging that the Defendant ( Sergi ) is in repeated and contumacious breach of restraint orders passed in CTR s patent infringement suit. This common judgment disposes of all four Notices of Motion. 2. I heard Mr. Seervai for CTR and Mr. Chagla for Sergi at some length. They took me through this record; no easy task, I might add, for not only do the Notices of Motion overlap, but they are also tied hand and foot to, and share a history with, CTR s principal Notice of Motion No. 497 of 2014 for injunctive relief. That Notice of Motion is now separated from this group, since I decided it by a judgment dated 23rd October 2015. There, I held for CTR and against Sergi on the issue of infringement of CTR s patent, one that relates to an explosion and fire detection technology for use in electrical transformers. Sergi is in appeal. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1992(24)DRJ463
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction in this Court against the defendants to desist forthwith from using, in any manner whatsoever, the casing, design/construction described and claimed by the plaintiff in its Indian Patent No. 164857 dated 12th May, 1987. (2) I.A.NO. 1069/92, under Order 39 Rules I and2C.P.C. has been filed in the suit for an Ex par lead interim injunction order.. This Court on January 31,1992, restrained the defendant from using, in any manner, whatsoever the casing, design/construction similar or deceptively similar to the casing/design/construction of the plaintiff in its Indian Patent No. 164857 dated May 12, 1987. (3) I.A.NO. 1992 of 92 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code . has been filed by the defendant for vacating the ex parte ad interim order made in favor of the plaintiffs and for declaring the patent as invalid. for the reasons as specified in the said application. Both the applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1912)14BOMLR1194
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in The Rangoon Botatoung Company Limited v. The Collector, Rangoon : (1912)14BOMLR833 . Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1913)ILR37Bom506
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in the matter of an award made by this Court on appeal from the Court of the District Judge. The proceedings were taken under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), and the question raised was as to the value of certain land acquired under that Statute by the Government. It is admitted that the value of the property involved in this application exceeds Rs. 10,000, and it is also admitted that a substantial point of law is involved in this Court's judgment with reference to the position occupied by the Special Collector under the Land Acquisition Act. The difficulty, however, in the way of the applicant is furnished by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Company, Ltd. v. The Collector, Rangoon 1912 40 Cal 21. Prima facie, as the learned Advocate General admitted, this decision seems to bar the applicant's right to appeal to the Privy Council. It was sought, however, to es...
Tag this Judgment!