Court : Delhi
Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of LA. No. 3756/2007 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale copper free mirrors infringing the plaintiffs registered patent No. 190380.Case of the Plaintiff2. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium. In India, the plaintiffs sales and marketing etc. are carried out by Glavindia Pvt. Ltd., 507 Gateway Plaza, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400076, Maharashtra.3. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling glasses, mirrors of world class quality. The plaintiff claims in the suit to be the innovator of the technology which has lead to the manufacture of mirrors of improved quality.4. The plaintiff in the present suit claims to be owner of the process as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad694
Mack, J.1. This, is a Letters Patent Appeal admitted by a learned Bench of this court against C. M. A. No. 522 of 1952, against an order by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. dismissing an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge Madras, refusing to stay O. S. No. 405 of 1952 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940.2. The facts are shortly these. Appellant and the defendant in the suit is the South India Co-operative Insurance Society. Ltd.. Madras. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent as a nominee of an insurance policy taken but with, this society by his late brother, Mr. Viyyanna, an advocate, who died on 10-4-1949. The policy was a double endowment policy No. 2190 dated 9-4-1935, under which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was payable if the assured died within a period of 15 years from the date of the policy. An enhanced sum of Rs. 2,000 would become payable if he survived this period.The policy matured on 8-4-1950 and the last premium was payable on 9-1-1950. The Soc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the following applications: a) IA No.15781/2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). b) IA No.3085/2009 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for restraining infringement of copyright, damages etc. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright in the repertoire of songs, cinematograph films, sound recordings etc. The plaintiff claims to have over 20000 Hindi Non film songs and around 50000 songs in regional languages. 3. The plaintiff further states that the business of the plaintiff which is film producing, music distribution etc is largely dependant upon the exploitation of its copyright. The said copyright exploitation enables the plaintiff to sustain its creative activities thereby giving opportunities to many talents including composers, artists, singers, etc. The plaintiff states that the monetary gains arising from copyright exploitation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009.NOVARTIS AG .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2728 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.32706 OF 2009.NATCO PHARMA LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2717-2727 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 12984-12994 OF 2013.SLP(C)../2011 CC Nos.6667-6677 M/S CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION .APPELLANT Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Aftab Alam, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. What is the true import of section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970?. How does it interplay with clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1)?. Does the product for which the appellant claims patent qualify as a new product which comes by through an invention that has a feature that involves technical advance over the existing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~34 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:20. h August, 2019 CS (COMM) 229/2019 and I.As. 11304/2019, 11305/2019 NOVARTIS AG & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Jha, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Mr. Rohan Krishnan & Dr. Shilpa Arora, Advocates (M:98736. 3089) Versus NATCO PHARMA LIMITED ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rajeshwari H., Mr. Swapnil Gaur and Mr. Kumar Chitranshu, Advocates (M:98979. 5254). CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral) The Defendant has filed two applications one under Order VII, Rule 1. 11 CPC and the second one under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC seeking dismissal of the present suit and vacation/suspension of the interim injunction operating in the present case on the ground that the patent granted in favour of the Plaintiffs has been revoked in the post grant opposition proceedings. The Defendant relies on the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT774
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 266-A/2001.2. At the outset, Mr. Madan Bhatia, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of present appeal on the ground that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 appeals were maintainable only against the orders mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 39(1). Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 39. Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order:An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these cases, questions of law referred to be decided by the Full Bench are:(i) Whether an appeal will lie against the order of a single Judge passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(ii) When such proceedings are under consideration can the learned single Judge pass interim orders; and(iii) If interim orders are passed by the single Judge, whether appeals to the Division Bench can be filed from such interim orders.2. No appeal is specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') against orders passed under Section 24. There is also no specific prohibition in CPC against filing of an appeal against such an order. Therefore, appeal can be filed if it is provided under any other law as right of appeal is a creature of Statute. Sections 104 and 105 of CPC prohibit filing of appeals except by express provision in the CPC or any other law. Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for appeal from the judgment or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 04.2016 Pronounced on:23. 12.2016 FAO(OS) 540/2011, C.M. APPL.20174/2011, 13919 & 17996/2015 MYSPACE INC. ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Rajendra Kumar, Sh. Prashant Gupta and Sh. Kanishk Kumar, Advocate. Versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neel Mason, Sh. Ankit Relan, Sh. Harsh Kaushik, Sh. Vinay. P. Tripathi, Ms Ridhima Pabbi, Ms. Rashi Punia and Sh. Sameer Rohatgi, Advocates. Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar and Ms. Tanya Verma, Advocates, for intervener. Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate, for Intervener/Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. is a defendants This interlocutory appeal in C.S(OS) 2682/2008 (the suit)wherein the order, on application by the plaintiff(Super Cassettes or SCIL)for interim injunction was granted and the appellant (MySpace) was restrained from hosting o...
Tag this Judgment!