Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a bunch of appeals preferred by the present appellant before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is about the maintainability of appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, rejecting the application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree making the Award Rule of the Court. The other question is as to whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the proceedings for making the award Rule of the Court since the District Courts of Asansol had also been moved by the appellant to issue notice to the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, for filing of the award in the Asansol Court.2. It appears that the appellant, namely the Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No.31068 of 2009 and SLP (C) No.4648 of 2010.2. The common question that arises for consideration by the Court in this batch of cases is whether an order, though not appealable under section 50 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after 1996 Act ), would nevertheless be subject to appeal under the relevant provision of the Letters Patent of the High Court. In other words even though the Arbitration Act does not envisage or permit an appeal from the order, the party aggrieved by it can still have his way, by-passing the Act and taking recourse to another jurisdiction.3. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, senior advocate, however, who led the arguments on behalf of the appellants, would like to frame the question differently. He would ask whether there is any provision in the 1996 Act that can be said to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under its Letters Patent either expressly or even impliedly. He would say that the jurisdiction of the High Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC1442; [1965]2SCR756
Subba Rao, J.1. This appeal by certificate raises the question whether an appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent for the High Court of Lahore, to a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court against a judgment passed by a single Judge of the said High Court in a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act No. 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act. 2. The facts relevant to the question raised may be briefly stated. The respondents are the owners of plot No. 5, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. Private Ltd. took a lease of the same under a lease deed dated March 1, 1956. Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. assigned their interest under the said lease deed to South Asia Industries (Private) Ltd., the appellant herein. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application before the Controller, Delhi, under section 14 of the Act for the eviction of the appellant from the said premises on the ground that Messrs. Allen Berry & Co. unauthorizedly as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT1(SC); 1993(2)ARBLR95(SC); JT1993(3)SC394; (1993)105PLR200; 1993(2)SCALE798; (1993)3SCC1; [1993]3SCR640
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The short and the only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if an appeal was maintainable against an order passed by the Learned Single Judge under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act either under Section 39(2) of the Act or under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.2. Facts are not in dispute. Since the State did not appoint any Arbitrator as provided for in Clause 25 of the agreement despite letters by the respondent to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (P.W.D.) and the Secretary P.W.D. the respondent approached the High Court and a Learned Single Judge by order dated 6th September, 1991 revoked the authority of the Chief Engineer to act as an arbitrator and directed one Shri O.K. Roy Chowdhury to act as the sole arbitrator as suggested by the respondent. Against this order the State filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the Division Bench upholding the objection of the respondent as not maintainable. It has been held that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC292Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION Curative Petition (C) Nos.108-109 of 2022 In Review Petition (C) Nos.1158-1159 of 2021 In Civil Appeal Nos 5627-5628 of 2021 Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Petitioner Versus Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Respondent Page 1 of 39 PART A JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Factual Background ................................................................................................... 3 B. DMRCs claim and the Tribunals findings ............................................................. 7 C. Decisions of the High Court .................................................................................... 10 D. Judgment of this Court in appeal ........................................................................... 11 E. Issues in the Curative Petition. .............................................................................. 12 F. Submissions .........................
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009.NOVARTIS AG .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2728 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) No.32706 OF 2009.NATCO PHARMA LTD. .APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2717-2727 OF 201.(ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 12984-12994 OF 2013.SLP(C)../2011 CC Nos.6667-6677 M/S CANCER PATIENTS AID ASSOCIATION .APPELLANT Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT 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...
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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3695 OF2020(@ SLP (C) No.11488 OF2020 S.D. CONTAINERS INDORE .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. MOLD TEK PACKAGING LTD. .....RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J.1. The present appeal has been filed to challenge an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside an order dated 23.03.2020 transferring the suit under Section 22(4) of the Design 2 Act, 20001 to the Calcutta High Court. It is the said order which was set aside by the High Court on 1.9.2020 directing that the Commercial Court, Indore is itself competent to decide the suit in terms of the Commercial Courts Act, 20152.2. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to restrain the appellants from either directly or indirectly copying, using or enabling others to use the plaintiffs design of Container and Lid registered under Design Application Nos. 299039 and 299041 respectively.3. In the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7843 OF2019(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9391 of 2019) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. .Appellant(s) Versus K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr. . Respondent(s) JUDGMENT A.S. Bopanna,J.Leave granted.2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Commercial Court Suit No.41/2018 filed before the Commercial Court at Vadodara. The respondents herein are arrayed as the defendants to the suit. The respondents on being notified in the suit had appeared and filed the written statement inter alia contending that the suit is not maintainable as the dispute involved cannot be termed 1 as a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act, 2015 for short). In view of such contention, the respondents herein also filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking an order to return the plaint to be presented in the Court in which the suit shoul...
Tag this Judgment!