Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. - 05-130 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 FONT SCAPS="1">EBAY INC. V. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EBAY INC. etal. v . MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05130.Argued March 29, 2006Decided May 15, 2006 Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondents subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondents motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. 401 F.3d 1323, 1339. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
K.CHandRU, J. 1. Both applications were filed by the applicant / plaintiff, seeking for an interim injunction with reference to an infringement of the applicant's registered patent bearing No.198122 in respect of Integral Cam Operated Rotary Switch by manufacture and sale of products identical to the applicant's products and also seeking for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner passing off Cam Operated Rotary Switches manufactured and sold by them by using identical or deceptively similar product, same or similar trade dress, colour scheme, get-up and layout. 2. Pending notices on the Original Applications, no ex parte order of injunction was granted. A counter affidavit, dated 09.04.2011 has been filed in both original applications. The applicant has filed a reply affidavit, dated 25.04.2011. 3. The applicant / plaintiff had filed a suit for the grant of similar relief of permanent in nature. On suit notice being served, the first defendant / first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr agree) 1. A person infringes a patent for a particular product if "he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it " “ see section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act"). The principle issue on this appeal concerns the meaning of the word "makes". The other aspect of this appeal raises a number of issues arising out of section 68 of the 1977 Act. The background facts and the patent in suit Intermediate Bulk Containers 2. An intermediate bulk container, unsurprisingly known as an "IBC", is a large container, normally around 1000 litres in volume, used for the transport of liquids. Such containers face tough transport conditions. They must be capable of bearing heavy weights (as much as six tonnes, as they are often stacked four-high), of withstanding prolonged or violent vibration, and of resisting the forces caused by the liquid splashing around inside, witho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6897-6898 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 19314-19315 OF2021 OWNERS AND PARTIES INTERESTED IN THE VESSEL M.V. POLARIS GALAXY Appellant (s) Versus BANQUE CANTONALE DE GENEVE Respondent (s) JUDGMENT Indira Banerjee, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals are against a judgment and order dated 28th October 2021 passed by the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing Commercial Appeal being O.S.A (CAD) No.88 of 2021 filed by the Respondent, and setting aside an order dated 24th September 2021 passed by the Commercial Division (Single Bench) of the High Court, adding Gulf Petroleum FZC as defendant in the Admiralty Suit filed by the Respondent, Banque Nationale De Geneve being CS (Commercial Division) No.96 of 2021. 13. The Appellant, M/s Galaxy Marine Services Limited is the registered owner of the Vessel, M. V. Polaris Galaxy, a sea-going oil tanker, flying the fla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : LC2010(1)278
S. Muralidhar, J.1. These six petitions raise an important question of law concerning the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge an order passed by the Controller of Patents (Controller.) either allowing or rejecting a pre-grant opposition filed under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Patents Act.).2. Before discussing the facts of the individual cases the scheme of the Patents Act, particularly after the amendment to the relevant provisions by way of Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Amendment Act.) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Mitra & Company v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs : (2008) 10 SCC 368 require to be examined. The statutory scheme of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act3. Section 15 of the Patents Act states that where the Controller is satisfied that the application for grant of patent, or any specification or any other document filed in pursuance thereof, does not comply with the requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(27)PTC343(Mad)
E. Padmanabhan, J.1. The applicants in O.A. No. 337 to 339 of 2001 are the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 265 of 2001. The applicants in Application No. 4803 of 2001 is defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, who have moved the application to vacate the order of interim injunction granted on 11.4.2001 in O.A. No. 339 of 2001. For convenience, the parties will be referred as arrayed in the suit.2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents or anyone claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered patent bearing No. 01301264 by using the offending patents either using the trade mark 'LOVATO' and 'LOVATO AUTOGAS' or the trade mark RAAJAN AUTO GAS or any other mark or marks which are in any way identical with or colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered patent, bearing the trade mark 'LOVATO' AND 'LOVATO AUTOGAS', either by manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or in any man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the grant of Patent No.231479 dated 04.03.2009 vide Patent Application No.96/MUM/2005 evidenced by AnnexureU to the petition and the order dated 03.06.2009 (AnnexureZ to the petition).2 The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title. It is a pharmaceutical company manufacturing, distributing, marketing and exporting pharmaceutical products particularly active pharmaceutical ingredients and finished dosage forms.3 The Respondent No.1 is also a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause title. It filed the above Patent Application which has been allowed by the authorities, who are Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to this Writ Petition.4 It is stated that on 01.02.2005 the Respondent No.1 filed a patent applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
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 knowledge and that makes the invention “not obvious” to a person skilled in the art? In case the appellant’s product satisfies the tests and thus qualifies as “invention” within the meaning of clauses (j) and (ja) of section 2(1), can its patentability still be questioned and denied on the ground that section 3(d) puts it out of the category of “invention”? On the answer to these questions depends whether the appellant is entitled to get the patent for the beta crystalline form of a chemical compound called Imatinib Mesylate which is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD253; 1998(2)ALT72
ORDER1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether there should be an order to be passed by the respondent-Employees State Insurance Corporation (E.S.I.) under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') before proceeding to recover under Section 45B of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The determination of question has arisen because of these facts.2. The appellant is an industry. It was to remit contributions to the Corporation under Section 39 of the Act regarding the employees who are to be compulsorily insured under Section 38 of the Act. The appellant is covered by the Act. The respondent Corporation initiated proceedings for recovery of Rs.6,814-18 ps. towards the alleged ESI contributions for the periods extending from December, 1975 to March, 1977. The appellant raised dispute before the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act raising a dispute as to its liability to pay the amounts demanded on the grounds viz., that there was no defa...
Tag this Judgment!