Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009BusLR478; 2009(1)CTC32; LC2009(2)36
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. Both the petitioners in this writ petition are registered societies under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 and they are providing support to people living with HIV/AIDS (herein after referred to as 'PLHIV'). The petitioners try to lend support to PLHIV in critical areas such as access to medicine and treatment and also for removal of discrimination facing PLHIV in Indian society. Members of the petitioner organizations are citizens of India.2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, the 4th respondent herein, is a pharmaceutical company registered in Switzerland having its office at 124, Grenzacherstrasse CH 4200, Basle, Switzerland. It filed a Patent Application titled '-(2-Amino-1, 6-Dihydro-6-oxopurin- 9-yl)-methoxy-1,3-propanediol Derivative', which was allocated No. 959/MAS/1995, for a patent relating to Valganciclovir, which is a drug used to treat CMC retinitis. The 4th respondent's Patent Application No. 959/MAS/1995 was filed on 27.07.1995, and the 2nd res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-25-2008
Reported in : LC2009(2)264; 2009(41)PTC597(Mad)
D. Murugesan, J.1. The O.S.A. No. 290 of 2008 is filed by M/s. Orchid Chemical and Pharmaceuticals Limited, while O.S.A. Nos. 301 and 339 of 2008 are filed by M/s. United Biotech Pvt. Limited. As the appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned single Judge, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.2. For convenience, M/s. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Limited will be referred to as 'the appellant', while M/s. United Biotech Pvt. Limited will be referred to as 'the respondent'.3. The conflict between the parties which resulted in the litigation are as follows:(i) According to the appellant company, they are engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical preparations since 1992. One of the products launched by the appellant company in the market in the year 1992 was CEFTAZIDIME preparations marketed in the trade mark ORZID. The appellant company obtained manufacturing licence for the product ORZID on 18.12.1998 with respect to export sale. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-29-2008
Reported in : (2008)8MLJ312
P.K. Misra, J.1. In all these writ petitions, the question regarding availability of medical facilities to the retired employees of the Central Government, either under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CS (MA) Rules) or the Central Government Health Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the CGHS) and issuance of Central Government Health Scheme Card for availing such facilities, is the core issue. The various Original Applications were filed by different retired employees of the Central Government claiming reimbursement of medical expenses / benefit of medical facilities.For convenience, the Central Administrative Tribunal, which decided various applications in favour of the retired employees, is referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal' and the retired employees, who were applicants before the Tribunal, are referred to as 'the applicant'.2. The basic facts and the basic questions involved in all these writ petitions are similar. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-01-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)ARBLR278(Madras)
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called 'ACA') was filed on 12.07.2007 by M/s. Wescare (India) Limited, praying for appointment of a sole arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising out of an agreement dated 24.02.2006 and pass an award thereof.2. The material facts are that the petitioner, first respondent and the second respondent are all companies registered under the Companies Act and having their registered offices in Chennai.3. The case of the petitioner is that it is engaged inter alia in the business of setting up of operation and management of wind farms for generation of power from wind electric generators. The first respondent is the promoter of the second respondent and both the first and the second respondents approached the petitioner sometime in the month of January/February 2006 to the effect that they were in the process of developing the busin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-30-2008
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 : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-27-2008
Reported in : 2009ACJ2606
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. These two civil revisions are directed against the order dated 1.8.2006 in I.A. Nos. 344 and 345 of 2006 in M.C.O.P. No. 878 of 2003, respectively, on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.2. The claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 878 of 2003 has been preferred by the revision petitioners before the trial court against the respondents claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family in the accident that occurred on 23.4.2003 involving the vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 and insured by respondent No. 2. Even though the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 17,05,000, the claim was restricted to Rs. 4,00,000 on account of their inability to pay the court-fee for the same.3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondent No. 2 by filing counter, wherein they have admitted the insurance, but disputed the claim on various grounds including the negligence of the deceased.4. The matter was subsequently poste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jun-09-2008
Reported in : (2009)ILLJ616Mad
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. W.P. Nos. 4821 and 4822/1998 were filed by the Management of D.C. Diwan Mohideen Beedi Factory while W.P. Nos. 5804 and 5805/1998 were filed by the Management of S.K.S. Pookoodal Beedi Factory and were directed against the order dated December 31, 1997 passed by the appellate authority under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act 1966.2. W.P. No. 13254/1998 is filed by one Zulekha and 37 others against the common order dated October 29, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in various C.P. Nos.3. W.P. No. 14036/1998 is filed by one Ansarbi and 55 others against the common order dated October 29, 1997 passed by the Labour Court, Salem in C.P. Nos. 286/1996, etc.4. With the consent of the parties, the writ petitions were heard together and a common order is passed.5. Heard the arguments of Mr. M.R. Raghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the Management and Mr. S. Arunachalam, learned Counsel appearing for the workmen and perused the records.6. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-26-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)ARBLR621(Madras)
Chitra Venkataraman, J.1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is by the borrower availing finance facility from the first respondent herein, against the award passed by the arbitrator, the second respondent herein in respect of the hire purchase agreement dated 18.03.1995 marked as Exhibit C-2.2. The facts leading to the filing of the proceedings invoking arbitration clause under the agreement are as follows:(a) The petitioner, a company, availed of hire purchase finance facility from the first respondent herein for a sum of Rs. 14,26,680. The parties herein entered into a hire purchase agreement on 18.03.1995 whereby, the first respondent company let on hire machinery described in the schedule annexed to the agreement dated 18.03.1995. In terms of the hire purchase agreement, the first petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 39,630 every month towards the monthly re-payment which spread over to a period of 36 months from 18.03.1995. The second peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-16-2008
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ726Mad; LC2008(1)217; 2008(36)PTC417(Mad)
P. Jyothimani, J.1. The plaintiff in C.S. No. 979 of 2007 is the defendant in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007.2. C.S. No. 1111 of 2007 is a suit filed under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the plaintiff's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said patent and/or manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale or exporting 2/3 wheelers, including the proposed 125-CC FLAME motorcycle containing an internal combustion engine or any internal combustion engine or product which infringes the plaintiff's patent No. 195904, claiming of damages for infringement of patent to the extent of Rs. 10,50,000/- etc.Pending the said suit, the plaintiff therein, namely Bajaj Auto Limited has filed O.A. 1357 of 2007 praying for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner infringing the applicant's patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/ invention described in the said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-04-2008
Reported in : III(2008)BC229
K.K. Sasidharan, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, the petitioner has impugned the order of the seventh respondent dated 14.3.2007 in M.A. No. 12of 2007 confirming the order of the sixth respondent dated 4.1.2006 in I.A. No. 504 of 2006 in T.A. No. 729 of 2002 (W.P. No. 15155 of 2007) and the order dated 14.3.2007 in M.A. No. 13 of 2007 confirming the order of the sixth respondent dated 4.1.2006 in I.A. No. 505 of 2006 in T.A. No. 729 of 2002 (W.P. No. 15156 of 2007).2. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of the Writ Petitions are as below:The first respondent herein preferred O.A. No. 277 of 2000 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai against the petitioner herein and respondents 2 to 4 for a decree directing them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,81,537.77 along with subsequent interest and the said O.A. was later transferred to Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai and renumbered as O.A. No. 834 of 2001. From the records, it is found that Vakalat was filed on behalf of all the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!