Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-18-2009
Reported in : LC2009(2)139; 2009(40)PTC689(Mad)
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.1. O.S.A. No. 91 of 2008 has been filed by the Appellant as against the fair and decreetal order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1272 of 2007 in C.S. No. 979 of 2007, in and by which, the Appellant's application for an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondent herein from in any way interfering with the manufacturing and marketing of the Appellant's products using Internal Combustion (IC) engine with 3 valves and 2 spark plugs pending the disposal of C.S. No. 979 of 2007 was rejected.2. O.S.A. No. 92 of 2008 has also been filed by the same Appellant challenging the order dated 16.02.2008, passed in O.A. No. 1357 of 2007, in C.S. No. 1111 of 2007, wherein, the Respondent's prayer for an ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant herein from in any manner infringing the Respondent's Patent No. 195904 and/or from using the technology/invention described in the said Patent No. 195904 and/or from manufacturing, marketing etc., for sale or exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-11-2009
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3801; (2009)225CTR(Bom)337; [2009]184TAXMAN103(Bom)
J.P. Devadhar, J.1. The only question raised in all these appeals is, whether depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is allowable on the stock exchange membership card acquired by an assessee on or after 1/4/1998 ?2. The ITAT has held that the Bombay Stock Exchange Membership Card (hereinafter referred to as the 'BSE card') acquired by an assessee on or after 1/4/1998, either by nomination or directly through the Stock Exchange is an intangible asset covered under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`Act' for short) and therefore, depreciation is allowable on the BSE Card. These appeals are filed by the revenue to challenge the aforesaid orders passed by the ITAT. 3. Since the question of law set out hereinabove is common in all these appeals, by consent, all these appeals are heard finally on the aforesaid substantial question of law and disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Mr. Gupta and Mr. Sahadevan, learned Counsel for the revenue submit that depreciation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-24-2009
Reported in : 159(2009)DLT243; LC2009(2)1; 2009(40)PTC125(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This appeal by the Plaintiffs F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (`Roche') and OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc. (`OSI') is directed against the judgment dated 19th March, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing I.A. No. 642/2008 filed by them in their suit CS (OS) No. 89/2008, thereby declining their prayer for grant of an interim injunction to restrain the Defendant/Respondent Cipla Limited from manufacturing, offering for sale, selling and exporting the drug Erlotinib, for which the plaintiff No. 2 claimed to hold a patent jointly with Pfizer Products Inc. The impugned judgment nevertheless put the defendant to terms including furnishing an undertaking to pay damages to the plaintiffs in the event of the suit being decreed, to maintain accounts of the sale of its product Erlocip, file in the court quarterly accounts along with the affidavit of one of its directors, and to file in the court annual statement of the sales of Erlocip duly authenticated by its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-28-2009
Reported in : 2009(41)PTC260(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J. IA No. 6782/2009(Under Section XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) & IA No. 8372/2009 (Under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC) 1. IA No. 6782/2009 is an application by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking an ad-interim ex parte injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1 from infringing the rights of the Plaintiff under No. 213608 (granted on January 9, 2008 by the Controller of Patents) by accepting the offer for sale of a side bearing pad assembly by the Consortium of which Defendants 2 to 4 are members. It also seeks an injunction to restrain Defendants 2 to 4 from making, manufacturing, using or offering for sale the side bearing pad assembly by infringing the Plaintiff's Patent. By an order dated 27th May 2009 this Court restrained Defendants 2, 3 and 4 and erstwhile Defendant No. 3 till the next date of hearing from infringing the patent rights of the Plaintiff and further restrained them from manufacturing, using or offering for sale any device in infringement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-04-2009
Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR3650
A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule.2. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission.3. By the present writ petition under Article 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, initially the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus for direction to the first respondent to decide the appeal challenging the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30th August 2008, with further prayers for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the sonography machine in the light of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7973/2008 dated 17th December 2008. During pendancy of the writ petition, the prayers were added to quash and set aside the order dated 30/08/2008 passed by the 2nd respondent suspending the registration of Genetic Clinic of the petitioner at (Exh.I, paper book page No. 39) and to quash and set aside the order dated 24/03/2009 (Exh.L at paper book page No. 52) passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-07-2009
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 6th February, 2009 rendered in W.P. No. 477(w) of 2009. By the aforesaid judgment, the Learned Single Judge has passed the following operative directions:On this petition being received, an interim order was made staying all further proceedings before the patent office. Since the petitioner says that its appeal from the order dated November 7, 2008 is pending and the petitioner has not had an opportunity of presenting its case before the appellate tribunal, the hearing of the private respondent's objection to the patent will remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date or the first opportunity that the petitioner is afforded to make a prayer for an interim order in the appeal, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner cannot persuade the appellate tribunal to allot it a date for hearing its interim prayer within the time stipulated, it will be open to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-02-2009
Reported in : 2009(40)PTC593(Del)
ORDERShiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. Plaintiffs filed this suit for permanent injunction against defendants since defendants had brought out a product in the market as MEDIFLON SAFETY. It is alleged that this product of the defendants infringes the plaintiffs' Patent No. 210062. The claim of plaintiffs patent No. 210062, as given in the plaint and in the documents filed mainly concerns claim No. 21 of the patent application filed by plaintiffs on 18th August 1998 and granted on 17th September 2007. It is described as under:Claim 21: An IV catheter assembly comprising:a needle having a needle shaft and a needle tip, the needle shaft comprising a portion of increased diameter proximal from the needle tip;. a housing having a cavity formed therein;. a needle guard disposed within the cavity, the needle guard comprising a proximal wall having first and second end portions and an opening therein, through which the needle shaft extends, and a resilient arm extending distally from the first end of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Feb-25-2009
LORD PHILLIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS My Lords, 1. I have had the benefit of reading in draft the speeches of each of your Lordships. They reach the same conclusion for the same reasons. I share both the conclusion and the reasoning and would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal. LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE My Lords, 2. Section 1(1) of the Patents Act 1977 lays down four conditions that must be satisfied if a patent for an invention is to be granted. The first of these is that “the invention is new". This condition is easy enough to understand if the invention is a process whereby something or other can be made or done. But I find it less easy to understand if the claimed invention is of a chemical product where, as here, the existence of the product is known, its chemical and molecular structure is known and, up to a point, its characteristics are known. The present case concerns a claim to a product patent. The product is the (+) enantiomer of citalopram. Citalopram is an organic compound,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-20-2009
Reported in : (2009)3GLR2167
Mohit S. Shah, J.1. This group of 13 appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the common judgment dated 25-8-2008 of the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 30705 of 2007 and connected petitions challenging removal of the appellants from the office of members of Bopal Gram Panchayat under Section 57(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Elections to Bopal Gram Panchayat were held on 25-12-2006. One Shantaben Bachubhai Patel was elected as Sarpanch. The present appellants, 13 in number, along with 13 other persons were elected as members of Bopal Gram Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gram Panchayat'). The first meeting of the Panchayat was held on 17-1-2007. By a show-cause notice dated 7-8-2007, the Sarpanch and other members of the Gram Panchayat including the present appellants, were called upon to show cause why they should not be removed from the office of Sarpanch and members of the G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-11-2009
Reported in : LC2010(1)37
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard both sides. Both applications were filed by the applicant/plaintiff.2. The first application is for the grant of an interim injunction, restraining the respondents/defendants from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the work titled 'FLYGUARD' in respect of the invention of the plaintiff under the name/title 'e-Passport(Smartcard)' and also as 'TCS e-Passport Solution' or such other name or title which are in any manner identical and similar with the copyright in the work on the plaintiff's invention/work 'FLYGUARD'.3. The second application is for an identical prayer for infringing of the Patent for the invention made by the applicant/plaintiff.4. The suit was filed by the applicant/plaintiff for the very same prayers and also to direct the surrender to the plaintiff the materials accumulated by the defendants in this regard and for a further direction to render true and faithful accounts of profits earned by the defendants.5. It is claimed by the applic...
Tag this Judgment!