Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1996Cal367,(1997)1CALLT123(HC),100CWN562
ORDER1. This hearing arises out of an application for temporary injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the suit the plaintiff prays for leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, and assignees etc. from in any way in fringing or attempting to infringe Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff; Decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from in any way manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or advertising any toilet soap bearing the Trade Mark 'VIGIL' or any other trade mark and having the composition that is covered under and/or within the range of Patent No. 170171 of the plaintiff. Delivery upon oath of all toilet soaps already manufactured and in possession, power and custody of the defendant No. 1 and/or the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and/ or their agents and servants that in any way infringe and/ or have been manufactured in accordance with the Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1986Cal338
ORDERPratibha Bonnerjea, J.1. This is an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of an umpire. The petitioner entered into a contract on 22nd/23rd Nov. 1982 by accepting the tender submitted by the respondent. The contract contained an arbitration clause that disputes arising out of the contract would be decided by arbitration. Disputes arose and reference was made to the joint arbitrators in accordance with the agreement. By a letter dt. 13-4-84 the arbitrators intimated the petitioner that they had received the statement of claim from the respondent and called upon the petitioner to submit its counter-statement on or before 2-5-84. The petitioner alleges that the joint arbitrators entered upon the reference without appointing an umpire. The petitioner by letter dt. 23-4-84 pointed out to the joint arbitrators that they did not appoint an umpire before entering upon the reference and requested them to appoint the umpire. It is alleged that in spite of such n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1996J& K67
Nazki, J.1. There is much ado about nothing. These four appeals have been filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of this court and are directed against the order rejecting the applicant's application for framing additional issues. Some facts are necessary in order to resolve controversy. Disputes arose between Irrigation Department and the respondent, these disputes were referred to an arbitrator who gave four awards. Awards were filed in this court, State filed objections to the award. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter was pending framed four issues. After the framing of the issues, an application was made by the appellant State in each case for framing additional issues and for recasting of the issues framed. The application was resisted by the respondent and the learned single Judge rejected the application. Against this rejection for framing of additional issues and for recasting of issues already framed, this appeal has been filed under Clause 12 of Letters Pat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1985Raj185; 1983()WLN439
Dwarka Prasad, J. 1. This matter has come before us on a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court and arises out of an appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 2. The appellant Ramdhan was declared elected as a Member of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly from the Ladnu Legislative Assembly Constituency on June 1, 1980. The respondent Bhanwarlal claiming himself to be an elector of the Ladnu Constituency presented an election petition in this Court on July 14, 1980 alleging that Ramdhan was guilty of corrupt practice specified in Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on account of his incurring expenditure in contravention of the provisions of Section 77 of the Act. According to the petitioner Bhanwarlal, the expenditure incurred by the returned candidate Ramdhan, in connection with the aforesaid election, exceeded the maximum limit authorised to be incurred by the notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT285(HC),1999(2)CHN107
R. Pal, J.1. This appeal Involves the question of the Jurisdiction of a single Judge, who has been given the determination to hear and dispose of arbitration matters, to entertain applications under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter referred to as the Act.)2. The facts giving rise to the question are briefly stated. The respondent does the business of rendering radio paging services. It procures pagers from the manufactures and appoints distributors to sell or lease the pager units to the consumers. According to the appellant the respondent was one such distributor and that in terms of the agreements between the resondent and the appellant, the respondent was to pay lease rent to the appellant. It is the appellant's case that lease rent of several lakhs of rupees fell due and payable by the respondent to the appellant.3. In September 1996 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant In (T.S. No. 361 of 1996) before the Second Munsiff at Allpore pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR1999J& K63
Arun Kumar Goel, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal u nder Clause 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Letters Patent is directed against the order passed by learned single Judge of this Court in Chamber on 26th of August, 1997. The said order has permitted the respondent No. 1 to file additional written statements, with a prayer to allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order.2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Election Petition No. 4 of 1996 titled Ram Saroop v. Returning Officer, is pending trial under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein election of the appellant has been questioned on a number of grounds. After the filing of written statement by the appellant to the said Election Petition vide order dated 22-5-1997 on an oral request having been made on behalf of the respondent No. 1-pct it Loner in the Election Petition, he was permitted to file replica to the written statement of defen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:23. 01-2014 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 M.C.Jayasingh ...Plaintiff Vs 1. Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited (MIDHANI) rep.by its Managing Director, Kanchanbagh Hyderabad 500 058.2. Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills Road Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 033.3. Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited Ali Towers, IV Floor, 55, Greams Road Chennai 600 006.4. Cancer Institute (W.I.A) (Regional Cancer Centre), Canal Bank Road Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. ...Defendants ----- Plaint under Order VII, Rule 1, CPC, read with Order IV, Rule of the Original Side Rules, Section 108 read with Section 50(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 and Section 22(2)(b) of the Designs Act, 2000. ----- For Plaintiff : Mr.M.Sundar For Defendant-1 : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan For Defendants 2&3 : Mr.C.Manishankar For Defendant-4 : Mr.N.L.Rajah ----- JUDGMENT This is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 167(2010)DLT6
Manmohan Singh, J.1. By this order I shall dispose of LA. No. 3756/2007 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale copper free mirrors infringing the plaintiffs registered patent No. 190380.Case of the Plaintiff2. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium. In India, the plaintiffs sales and marketing etc. are carried out by Glavindia Pvt. Ltd., 507 Gateway Plaza, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Mumbai- 400076, Maharashtra.3. The plaintiff claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling glasses, mirrors of world class quality. The plaintiff claims in the suit to be the innovator of the technology which has lead to the manufacture of mirrors of improved quality.4. The plaintiff in the present suit claims to be owner of the process as well as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1955Mad694
Mack, J.1. This, is a Letters Patent Appeal admitted by a learned Bench of this court against C. M. A. No. 522 of 1952, against an order by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. dismissing an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge Madras, refusing to stay O. S. No. 405 of 1952 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940.2. The facts are shortly these. Appellant and the defendant in the suit is the South India Co-operative Insurance Society. Ltd.. Madras. The suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent as a nominee of an insurance policy taken but with, this society by his late brother, Mr. Viyyanna, an advocate, who died on 10-4-1949. The policy was a double endowment policy No. 2190 dated 9-4-1935, under which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was payable if the assured died within a period of 15 years from the date of the policy. An enhanced sum of Rs. 2,000 would become payable if he survived this period.The policy matured on 8-4-1950 and the last premium was payable on 9-1-1950. The Soc...
Tag this Judgment!