Court : Delhi
1. By this order, I shall dispose of the following applications: a) IA No.15781/2008 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC). b) IA No.3085/2009 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. 2. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for restraining infringement of copyright, damages etc. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the copyright in the repertoire of songs, cinematograph films, sound recordings etc. The plaintiff claims to have over 20000 Hindi Non film songs and around 50000 songs in regional languages. 3. The plaintiff further states that the business of the plaintiff which is film producing, music distribution etc is largely dependant upon the exploitation of its copyright. The said copyright exploitation enables the plaintiff to sustain its creative activities thereby giving opportunities to many talents including composers, artists, singers, etc. The plaintiff states that the monetary gains arising from copyright exploitation ...
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 : Orissa
Reported in : AIR2009Ori46; 2008(II)OLR725:AIR2009Orissa46
A.S. Naidu, J.1. The judgment of August 6, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in FAO No. 386 of 2007 is assailed in this Letters Patent Appeal. In the FAO an order of September 9, 2005 passed by the Ad hoc Addl. District Judge, FTC-Ill, Bhubaneswar in Interim Application No. 12 of 2005 arising out of C.S. No. 498 of 2004 appointing a receiver under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called 'CPC) was assailed.2. The question of maintainability of the LPA against the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court was raised in course of hearing of the LPA. It was pointed out at the Bar that there had been two sets of directly conflicting judgments of Division Benches of this Court, inasmuch as in the case of V.N.N. Panicker v. Narayan Patl and Anr. 2006 (II) OLR 349, a Division Bench had taken the view that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable in view of amendment of Section 100-A CPC against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : LC2009(1)197; (2008)3MLJ599
A.H. Joshi, J.1. The Appeal is listed for hearing with a clear understanding given to the parties that the Appeal will be taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission hearing.2. Accordingly, parties have addressed their submissions based thereon.The Appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant No. 1 is not entitled to manufacture, sell, use etc. or offer for sale the product patented in favour of plaintiff titled as 'GSWR and Spiral Lock Systems bearing Patent Nos. 196240 and 201177' respectively and also for a perpetual injunction to the effect as described above.By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff has also prayed for damages in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000-00, with a further decree for rendition of accounts of profit and delivering to plaintiff all the products and systems used in violation of the patent.3. The plaintiff has complained that the cause of action for filing of the suit arose in or about December, 2005, when the plaintiff came to know t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 156(2009)DLT774
Manmohan, J.1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the judgment and order dated 5th May, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge in Suit No. 266-A/2001.2. At the outset, Mr. Madan Bhatia, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of present appeal on the ground that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 appeals were maintainable only against the orders mentioned in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 39(1). Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: 39. Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2006Ker58; 2006(4)CTC273; [2006(2)JCR94]; 2005(4)KLT865
J.B. Koshy, J.1. In these cases, questions of law referred to be decided by the Full Bench are:(i) Whether an appeal will lie against the order of a single Judge passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure;(ii) When such proceedings are under consideration can the learned single Judge pass interim orders; and(iii) If interim orders are passed by the single Judge, whether appeals to the Division Bench can be filed from such interim orders.2. No appeal is specifically provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') against orders passed under Section 24. There is also no specific prohibition in CPC against filing of an appeal against such an order. Therefore, appeal can be filed if it is provided under any other law as right of appeal is a creature of Statute. Sections 104 and 105 of CPC prohibit filing of appeals except by express provision in the CPC or any other law. Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 provides for appeal from the judgment or o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 04.2016 Pronounced on:23. 12.2016 FAO(OS) 540/2011, C.M. APPL.20174/2011, 13919 & 17996/2015 MYSPACE INC. ..... Appellant Through: Sh. Rajendra Kumar, Sh. Prashant Gupta and Sh. Kanishk Kumar, Advocate. Versus SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Sh. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neel Mason, Sh. Ankit Relan, Sh. Harsh Kaushik, Sh. Vinay. P. Tripathi, Ms Ridhima Pabbi, Ms. Rashi Punia and Sh. Sameer Rohatgi, Advocates. Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar and Ms. Tanya Verma, Advocates, for intervener. Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocate, for Intervener/Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. is a defendants This interlocutory appeal in C.S(OS) 2682/2008 (the suit)wherein the order, on application by the plaintiff(Super Cassettes or SCIL)for interim injunction was granted and the appellant (MySpace) was restrained from hosting o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1956P& H141
Falshaw, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen in the following circumstances. The respondent Prithi Raj claims to be a displaced per. son from Lahore now residing at Delhi where he carries on the business of a building contractor. In 1949 he entered into a contract with the negistered society known as the Jamia Millia Islamia for the construction of a Teachers' Training Institute Hostel and according to his allegations completed the building in July 1951.He claimed that allowing for payments made by the Society and the material supplied by it a sum of Rs. 1,97,000/- was still due to him and he therefore filed a petition before a Tribunal constituted under Act LXX of 1951 under Section 13 of that Act which deals with the claims by displaced creditors against persons who are not displaced debtors.The claim was resisted by the Society which denied that the subject-matter of the claim was a debt within the meaning of the Act, and also applied for the stay of proceedings before the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1968P& H277
Shamsher Bahadur, J.1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a preliminary objection has been raised that such an appeal does not lie from the order of the learned Single Judge (D.K. Mahajan J.) who on 11th of April, 1967, partially allowed the appeal preferred from the order of Shri Gyani as a Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19392. A transport vehicle carrying passengers and belonging to the appellant, the Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co., (P) Ltd struck two boys. Pardeep Kumar and Devinder Singh, riding on a bicycle on 27th April 1962. One of the two boys. Pardeep Kumar received serious injuries resulting in amputation of one leg and damage to the foot of the other side The father of Pardeep Kumar claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed damages to him to the extent of Rs. 7000/- Devinder Singh was awarded a sum of only Rs 700. These damages were payable by the appellant, which is the owner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* % + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h March, 2017. W.P.(C) 1971/2014 BAYER CORPORATION ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Arpita Sawhney and Mr. Arun Kumar Jana, Advs. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. T.P. Singh, Adv. for R-1 & 6. Mr. Prashant Tyati and Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Advs. for R-7. Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rajeshwari, Ms. Aparna Gaur, Mr. Tahir A.J.and Mr. Gajendra, Advs. for R-5. AND CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ....Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Archana Shanker, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Advs. Versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Defendant W.P.(C) No.1971/2014 & CS(COMM) No.1592/2016 Page 1 of 40 Through: Ms. Prathiba M. Singh, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Saya Chaudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan, Mr. Rohin Koolwal, Ms. Sutapa Jana and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. CORAM: ...
Tag this Judgment!