Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-15-2014
C.A.V. Judgment: M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order dated 4 March 2013 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Tribunal). By the impugned order the Tribunal upheld the order dated 9 March 2012 passed by the Controller of Patents (Controller) granting Compulsory License to M/s. Natco Pharmaceuticals Limited (Natco) under Section 84 of the Patent Act 1970 (the Act). This compulsory licence was in respect of the petitioner's patented invented drug Sorafenib Tosylate (compound of Carboxyaryl Substituted Diphenyl Ureas) sold under brand name Nexavar (patented drug). 2) This petition arises out of orders granting a compulsory license of the patented drug owned by the petitioner to Natco on application of the provisions of Chapter XVI and in particular Section 84 of the Act. The challenge of the petitioner is to the allowing of the application of Natco for compulsory licence and to the manner in which Chapter XV...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-2014
MohitS. Shah, CJ. 1. This reference has been made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated 13 August 2012 of learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.R. Gavai, J.) for considering following question of law: Whether the Court can go into the question of the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark at an interlocutory stage when the defendant takes up the defence of invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark in an infringement suit? 2. The learned Single Judge felt the need to make this reference in view of two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court, one holding that the Court can not go into the question of validity of registration of a trade mark when such defence is taken by the defendant at an interlocutory stage in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark (judgment dated 16 February 2005 in M/s. Maxheal Pharmaceuticles v/s. Shalina Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Appeal No.88 of 2005 in N.M.No.2663 of 2004 in suit No.2663 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-10-2014
Oral Judgment: (V.M. Kanade, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking an order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 03/01/2011 and 09/03/2011 passed by Respondent No.3 on behalf of Respondent No.2. Petitioner further seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to correct its record so as to reflect that 3rd to 9th year annuities for the Patent No.207883 as paid and also to correct its record so as to reflect that 10th year annuity for the Patent No.207883 as paid. Petitioner is further seeking restoration of Patent No.207883 or in the alternative a direction directing the Respondents to proceed with the application for restoration of Patent No.207883 on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Petitioner is a Japanese Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-27-2014
S.J. Vazifdar, J. 1. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13th March, 2012, directed the office to place the papers before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. The Division Bench opined that the following question ought to be referred for consideration to a larger bench. Whether an appeal under the provisions of clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a civil suit in an application filed in that civil suit because of the provisions of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is maintainable or not ? The learned Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench and referred the above question to it. 2. We have held that an appeal against an order in an application under section 8 is not maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Our conclusion is based on principle and on authority. It is based on our interpretation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the framework in which it now sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Decided on : Nov-05-2014
1. The first proceeding is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Relief to set aside the order of issue process made in Regular Criminal Case No.73/2011 is claimed and the relief of quashing of the proceeding filed as a complaint by the public servant, authority under the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is claimed. The proceeding is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Omerga, District Osmanabad and it is filed under sections 23, 25, 29 of the Act and under Rule 9(4), (6) and (8) of the The Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, 1996 (hereafter referred to as "the Rules"). Criminal Revision Application No.9/2011 was filed against the order of issue process by the petitioners in Sessions Court but the revision is dismissed by the Sessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-25-2014
1. Both these Petitions raise common issues of fact and law and therefore can be conveniently disposed of together. The challenge in the two Petitions is directed against the Order dated 22 December 2006 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, referring under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("said Act"), a dispute with the following terms of the reference: "By cancelling the Order dated 29.12.2003 the workmen be absorbed in the establishment of M/s. Otis Elevators (India), Mumbai (List is enclosed herewith)" 2. The brief facts and circumstances in which the challenge arises is that the 252 employees referred to in the list annexed to the Order of Reference dated 22 December 2006 ("impugned order") were admittedly the employees of M/s. Otis Elevator Co. (I) Ltd., (hereafter referred to as "the Otis") at least upto 29 December 2003. On and from the said date, the services of such employees were purported to be transferred on "as is where is basis" to M/s. U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-12-2014
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and taken up for final disposal. 2. By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 17th January, 2014 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Mumbai in Special Case No. 90/2010, by which the applicant's application seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, instituted against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`PC Act'), came to be rejected. 3. The short question that arises for determination in the present petition is, whether the applicant can be termed as a 'public servant' within the meaning of Section 2(c)(viii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC' Act), in the facts of the present case. 4. The applicant is stated to be a highly qualified and renowned Structural Engineer with expertise of three decades in the said field. He is also stated to have been professionally trained in space analysis and finite element an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : May-27-2014
1. The Plaintiff is a subsidiary of Whirlpool Corporation, a Company incorporated under the laws of the United States. According to the Plaintiff Whirlpool Corporation is one of the world's leading manufacturers of home appliances globally and a pioneer in the manufacture and sale of washing machines. According to the Plaintiff, it is a pioneer in India for washing machines and manufactures all three types of washing machines viz. semi automatic, fully automatic (top loading) and a fully automatic (front loading) targeting different segments of consumers. 2. According to the Plaintiff, it has obtained two design registrations i.e. Nos. 223833 and 223835 which are annexed at Exhibits A1 and A2 at pages 40 and 45 of the Plaint (the said designs). The said design registrations are valid, subsisting and in force for a period of ten years from 15th July, 2009, and their validity can be extended for an additional period of five years thereafter. In or about June, 2012, the Plaintiff came acr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-18-2014
1. The Petitioners (œPlaintiffs?) have filed the present Suit, inter alia, for infringement of its registered trademarks being œUltraTech Cement? and/or marks, the essential feature whereof is 'UltraTech', as more particularly set out in the Plaint, and for passing off. 2. For the sake of convenience, the Petitioners shall hereinafter be referred to as œthe Plaintiffs? and the Respondents as œthe Defendants?. 3. According to the Plaintiffs, this Court has jurisdiction to grant reliefs for infringement of trademarks in view of the fact that the Plaintiffs carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court and Plaintiff No.1 has its Registered Office and Plaintiff No.2 has its Corporate Office within the jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, the Defendants do not carry on business nor do they have any place of business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In view thereof, the Plaintiffs are, by the present Petition, seeking leave under Clause XIV of the L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jul-08-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Petitioner has filed these four petitions under section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for interim measures. The respondents have raised various issues which are common in all the four matters. By consent of parties, all the four matters are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Some of the relevant facts of the above four matters are as under : Arbitration Petition No.290 of 2014 (a) Respondent no.1 is borrower. Respondent no.2 is a guarantor to the loan obtained by respondent no.1. The respondent no. 3 and 4 are the debtors of respondent no.1 and 2 and have been joined as parties to secure the claim of the petitioner against respondent no.1 and 2. (b) On 31st December, 2011 the petitioner and the respondent no.1 and 2 entered into a loan agreement. Petitioner granted loan of Rs.28,35,000/- to the respondent no.1 and 2 on the terms and conditions described in the said agreement. Respondent no.1 executed demand promissory note on ...
Tag this Judgment!