Court : Delhi
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 : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Sri Y.J. Trivedi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Rajeev Naiar, Counsel representing the respondent.2. Sri Y.J. Trivedi, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would maintain that the Original Petition is filed by Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, praying for revocation of the patent. The learned Counsel also would maintain that Section 107 of the Patents Act, 1970, hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience, deals with suits for infringement of patents. The Counsel also would maintain that the restraint order which is passed in relation to the breach of earmark in C.S. No. 25-A/2004 by the District Court, Indore is totally for a different purpose and the scope and the ambit of the said suit also being different, the said order would not come in the way of granting suspension as prayed for in the present applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT73; 2009(39)PTC212(Del)
Manmohan Singh, J.1. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for anti suit injunction, damages and other reliefs. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking issuance of an ex parte ad interim injunction being I.A. No. 5854/08 has also been filed. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued on 13th May 2008 restraining the Appellants, their agents and representatives from proceeding further with the complaint pending on the file of the United States International Trade Commission, Washington DC, USA ( hereinafter referred to as 'USITC') under Section 337 of the United States Trade Tariff Act.2. Against the said ex-parte ad-interim order present Appeal under Section 10(1) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order 41 Rule 1(r) of CPC has been filed.3. While granting the ex parte ad interim injunction the learned single Judge in Para 12 of the impugned order has given the following reasons:In the present case, the plaintiff, in addition to disclosing a prima facie case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1994CriLJ3830
P.L.N. Sarma, J.1. This matter has been placed before us on Office note as to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal sought to be filed by the appellants. 2. The relevant facts are as follows : Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16523 of 1991 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the settlement arrived at dated 26-10-1991 entered into by the respondents with the Union under S. 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20-4-1992 in the following terms : 'In view of the above, there will be a direction that the respondents shall consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment as Helpers in terms of the Settlement dated 26-10-1991 which the respondents had entered into with the Trade Union representing the petitioners. I make it absolutely clear that I am not pronouncing up...
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 : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1952Bom229; (1952)54BOMLR94; ILR1952Bom570
Bavdekar, J. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Shah J., on appeal from an order refusing to sat aside an award. It is necessary to stale the facts, because a preliminary point has been taken before us that Shah J. having dismissed the appeal, no appeal lies now under the Letters Patent to a Division Bench of this Court.[2] Now, an appeal lies to a Division Bench of this Court from a judgment of a single Judge under the Letters Patent; but it is contended on behalf of the respondents that this right of appeal given by the Letters Patent is taken away by the provisions of Section 39, Arbitration Act. That section provides: 'An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to bear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order : An order: (i) superseding an arbitration ;(ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case ;(in) modifying or correcting an award ;(iv) filing or refusing to file an ...
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 : Chennai
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554
1. The above appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2000 in C.M.A.No.874 of 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. We need not go into the merits of the case, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the above appeal.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, second appeal is not maintainable, as barred under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. To appreciate the said condition, it is beneficial to extract Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which reads as follows:' Section 39: Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act and from none others to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order: An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbit...
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 : Delhi
Reported in : 1999IVAD(Delhi)613; AIR2000Delhi23; 80(1999)DLT56
ORDERDR. M.K. Sharma, J.1.By this common order I propose to dispose of the applications registered as I.A. 11829/1998, 774/1999 and 775/1999 in Suit No. 2391/1998: I.A. 9131/1996 & 1530/1997 in Suit No. 2428/1996; I.A. 1207/1997, 2588/1997 & 3368/1997 in Suit No. 289/1997; I.A. 7489/1995 in Suit No. 1669/1994, I.A. 7749/1996 in Suit No. 1970/1995, I.A. 9132/1996 & 4746/1998 in Suit No. 2427/1996 & I.A. 7374/1995 in C.O. No. 25/1995. For convenience sake, the plaintiff in Suit No. 2391/1998, M/s. Standipack Private Limited is being described as the plaintiff throughout in the present order and the other parties are described as defendants. Injunction applications have been filed by the plaintiff seeking for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or using the patented pouch of the plaintiff. The case sought to be made out by the plaintiff in the injunction applications is that the patent in respect of pouch for storage and dispensing of a liquid such as lubri...
Tag this Judgment!