Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-11-2018
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:09. 03.2018 Pronounced on:11. 04.2018 FAO (OS) (COMM) 86/2017, C.M. APPL.14331, 14335, 15669, 17064/2017 NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. AND ORS. Appellants Through: Sh. C.A. Sundaram, Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Diya Kapur, Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Ms. Swati Setia, Sh. Essence Obhan, Ms. Himanie Katoch, Sh. Nikhil Ratti Kapoor, Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Ms. Pooja Katara, Ms. Charul Yadav, Sh. Abhishek Saket, Ms. Vijaya Singh, Sh. Jatin and Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocates. Versus MONSANTO TECHNOLOGY LLC AND ORS. ..Respondents Through: Sh. Sandeep Sethi, Ms. Prathiba. M. Singh, Sh. C.M. Lall, Sr. Advocates with Ms. Bitika Sharma, Sh. Kapil Midha, Ms. Namrita Kochhar, Ms. Deepshika Malhotra, Sh. Adarsh Ramanujam, Sh. Anil Dutt, Sh. Shantanu Agarwal, Sh. Rishi Agarwala, Ms. Anusuya Nigam, Sh. Lakshay Kaushik and Ms. Ruchika Wadhawan, Advocates. Sh. Sunil Mathews, Advocate, for UOI. Sh. Neel Mason and Ms. Ridhima, Advocates, for Amar Biotech Ltd. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-09-2018
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.215 OF2005Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Versus Union of India and Another ...Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. I N D E X Heading S. No.A. Prologue B. Contentions in the Writ Petition Page No.3 10 C. Stand in the counter affidavit and the 14 applications for intervention D. Background of the Writ Petition D.1 P. Rathinams case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code D.2 Gian Kaurs case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 306 of 18 19 22 2 the Indian Penal Code D.3 The approach in Aruna Shanbaug qua Passive Euthanasia vis--vis India D.4 The Reference E. Our analysis of Gian Kaur F. Our analysis of Aruna Shanbaug qua legislation 30 42 45 51 G. The Distinction between Active and Passive 52 Euthanasia H. Euthanasia : International Position H.1 U.K. Decisions: H.1.1 Airedale Case H.1.2 Late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-09-2018
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3155 OF2017UNION OF INDIA APPELLANT VERSUS MOOL CHAND KHAIRATI RAM TRUST RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.31533154 OF2017CIVIL APPEAL No.3156 OF2017AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.31573158 OF2017JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The question involved in the appeals is with respect to the validity of Circular issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) on 2.2.2012 whereby it intimated the hospitals to implement 2 the judgment of Delhi High Court with regard to free treatment to the weaker sections of the society in terms of the judgment dated 22.3.2007 in the case of Social Jurists v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Thereafter, the Land & Development Officer (in short, L&DO') passed an order dated 2.2.2012 wherein it was stated that the Government of India had taken a policy decision that all the hospitals which have been provided land by L&DO have to strictly follow the policy of providing free treatment as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-13-2018
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9519 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21859 of 2018) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. Medical Council of India (in short, the MCI) is in appeal as against the judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition of the medical college to admit 150 students for the academic year 2018-19 and in view of G.O. dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Government of India granting permission subject to the outcome of the writ petition in view of mandatory interlocutory order dated 29.5.2018 requiring the Government of India to accord approval to the college by 31.5.2018, though the said interlocutory order dated 29.5.2018 also permitting provisional admissions was set aside by this Court in Civil Appeal No.6001 of 2018.2. The case has a chequered history. After the N.C. Medical College had 1 obtained E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2018
$~J- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :08. 02.2018 Pronounced on :19. 02.2018 CS(COMM) 918/2016 SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta Jha and Mr.Waseem Shuaib Ahmed, Advs. versus LUPIN LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.C.M.Lall, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ankur Sangal & Ms.Pragya Mishra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA Nos.19585/2014 (u/O39R1& 2 CPC) & 20124/2014 (u/O39R4CPC) 1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, etc. from dealing with any medicinal preparations under the impugned mark TRI-VOBIT or any other mark which is phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark TRIVOLIB. Other connected reliefs are also sought.2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed IA No.19585/2014 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. This application along with the suit came up for hearing on 01.10.2014 when this court passed an interi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-22-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 11th, 2018 Pronounced on:22. d January, 2018 + W.P (C) No.5349/2004 BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Ms. Urvi Mohan and Mr. Rhishabh Jetley, Advs. Versus BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manish Sharma with Mr. Ninad Dogra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT % 1. The Batra Hospital Employees Union claims, in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to be aggrieved by an Award, dated 03rd November 2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Karkardooma (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which holds that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 do not apply to the Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre.2. The Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Hospital) was, admittedly, managed and run by the Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Charitable Trust (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h January, 2018. CS(COMM) 1683/2016 UNILIN BEHEER B.V. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro and Mr. Shamim Nooreyezdan, Advs. Versus BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Hari Subramaniam and Mr. Sanuj Das, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.15331/2017 (of defendant u/S151CPC) 1. On 20th December, 2017, the following order was made: 1. The defendant / applicant seeks stay of proceedings in this suit for infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs, contending that the term of the patent has expired and the defendant / applicant, prior to institution of this suit, had approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 for revocation of the patent. The counsel for the plaintiff appears on advance 2. notice.3. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant / applicant, whether there is any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-2018
$~31 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5590/2015 & CM No.10090/2018 % Date of decision :23. d April, 2018 SHAMNAD BASHEER ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari and Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for R-1/UOI Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv.with Mrs. Saya Chaudhary, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Prateek Sehrawat, Mr. A. Joyaraj and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. for Intervenor-Ericsson Mr. Rajiv Kr. Choudhry, Adv. for Intervenor-TEMA Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer and Mr. Nishanth Kadur, Advs. for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition is concerned with issues relating to the working of patents under the Patents Act, 1970. It appears that concerned with W.P.(C)No5590/2015 Page 1 of 4 the several issues relating to Section 146 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) read with Rule 131 of Patents Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-17-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:17. 07.2018 + W.P.(C) 11802/2016 and CM Nos. 8215/2017, 8217/2017 and 19029/2017 MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : : Mr Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr Navpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Mr Salil Seth, Mr Pradeep Chhindra and Mr Adhesh Sharma. Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Prateek Dhanda, Mr Waize Ali Noor, Ms Ruchi Jain and Mr Saeed Qadri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company and has filed the present petition impugning the Standing Order No.1687 (E) dated 09.05.2016 (hereafter the impugned notification) passed by the Assistant Director, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereafter NPPA) to the extent that it includes the formulation, TRD Contin 100 mg. tablet CR10(hereafter the Formulation), within the scope of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:31. 10.2018 + W.P.(C) 11802/2016 and CM Nos. 8215/2017, 8217/2017 and 19029/2017 MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr Navpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Mr Salil Seth, Mr Pradeep Chhindra and Mr Adhesh Sharma. : Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Prateek Dhanda, Mr Waize Ali Noor, Ms Ruchi Jain and Mr Saeed Qadri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company and has filed the present petition impugning the Standing Order No.1687 (E) dated 09.05.2016 (hereafter the impugned notification) passed by the Assistant Director, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereafter NPPA) to the extent that it includes the formulation, TRD Contin 100 mg. tablet CR10(hereafter the Formulation), within the scope of th...
Tag this Judgment!