Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: October 12, 2017 + W.P.(C) 7911/2016, CM No.32744/2016 AISHWARYA ADHIKARI ........ Petitioner Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Mr.Vaibhav Vats and Ms.Soumya Maheshwari, Advs. Versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Ginny J.Rautray and Ms. Anushka Ashok, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J1 The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-"In view of the facts & circumstances stated above, it is prayed that this Honble Court in public interest may be pleased to:1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the report of W.P.(C) No.7911/2016 Page 1 of 39 the High Level Enquiry Committee set up by the respondent vide Office Order No.207/CP/2016 dated 22.8.2016 of the Vice Chancellor punishing the petitioner, and all other proceedings consequential to and arising out of the report of the High L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* + + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:12. 10.2018 Pronounced on:22. 04.2019 LPA No.359/2017, CM Nos.17922/2017, 20160/2017, 33383- 84/2017, 47167/2017 & 660/2018 BAYER CORPORATION ..... Appellant 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 and Mr. Shashwat Jain, Advs. for R-1 & 6. Ms. Rajeshwari, Adv. for R-2 & 5. Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advocates for Interveners. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017, CM Nos.17508/2017 & 32128- 29/2017 BAYER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GMBH & ANR ..... Appellants Through: Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Nishchal Anand and Mr. Sanchith Shivakumar, Advs. versus ALEMBIC PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Saya Choudhary Kapur, Mr. Vivek Ranjan and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. FAO (OS) (COMM) 169/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2003Raj63; 2003(2)WLN28
B. Prasad, J.1. These two appeals are filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). With the repeal of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, Section 18 also stands repealed. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Vasna Ram, reported in 2002 (2) WLC (Raj) 383, has taken note of this fact thus:--'This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance'). That Ordinance provided inter-Court appeal against the judgment and order of the single Judge passed in writ petitions and also against the judgments in first appeal by the single Judge. The said Ordinance stood repealed by the Judicial Administration Laws (Repeal) Act, 2001 (Act No. 22 of 2001) which received the assent of Hon'ble the President of India on 29-8-2001 and has been published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, dated 29-8-2001....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1909)ILR36Cal141
R.F. Rampini, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises out of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376, has held that the Article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the Article applicable is not Article 36, but some other Article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer (1898) I.L.R. 25 Calc. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I consider that the Article of the Schedule to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.788
Robert Rampini, Acting C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Geidt.2. The appeal arises cut of a suit for compensation for the illegal distress, and the cutting and carrying off of standing crops. Mr. Justice Geidt relying on the decision of this Court in Mohesh Chandra Das v. Hari Kar (1905) 9 C.W.N. 376; (Sub-nomine Hari Charan Fadikar v. Hari Kar) 32 C. 459, has held that the article of the Limitation Act applicable is Article 36, and that the suit is accordingly barred as brought more than two years after the accrual of the cause of action.3. On behalf of the plaintiff it has been contended that Mr. Justice Geidt's decision is wrong, and that the article applicable is not Article 36, but some ether article allowing 3 years for the suit and that the case relied on by Mr. Justice Geidt is at variance with the Full Bench decision in Mangun Jha v. Dolhin Golab Koer 25 C. 692.4. I am unable, however, to see that Mr. Justice Geidt's judgment is wrong. I...
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!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi160
H.L. Anand, J. (1) This second Appeal under section 39 of She Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called 'the Act', rates' some interesting question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 85 of the Evidence Act and in particular the question whether the presumption provided under the said Section could be available where the document in question had been attested by aforeign authority and as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968, hereinafter called 'the Enemy Act', but, unfortunately for the appellant, must be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time. It has been filed in the following circumstances.(2) On October 3, 1960. Smt. Zubeda Begum. Smt. Sugra Begum. Smt. Zohra Begum, Smt. Nasira Begum for self and on behalf of her minor sons Abid Ali, Wahid Ali and Liak All and her daughter Suraiya Begum filed an application for the eviction of respondent from property bearing No. 3705-6, Ward Vii, Shah Ganj. Delhi under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C. - 05-130 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 FONT SCAPS="1">EBAY INC. V. MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES EBAY INC. etal. v . MERCEXCHANGE, L. L. C. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 05130.Argued March 29, 2006Decided May 15, 2006 Petitioners operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list goods they wish to sell. Respondent sought to license its business method patent to petitioners, but no agreement was reached. In respondents subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, that petitioners had infringed the patent, and that damages were appropriate. However, the District Court denied respondents motion for permanent injunctive relief. In reversing, the Federal Circuit applied its general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances. 401 F.3d 1323, 1339. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Kerr agree) 1. A person infringes a patent for a particular product if "he makes, disposes of, offers to dispose of, uses or imports the product or keeps it " “ see section 60(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1977 ("the 1977 Act"). The principle issue on this appeal concerns the meaning of the word "makes". The other aspect of this appeal raises a number of issues arising out of section 68 of the 1977 Act. The background facts and the patent in suit Intermediate Bulk Containers 2. An intermediate bulk container, unsurprisingly known as an "IBC", is a large container, normally around 1000 litres in volume, used for the transport of liquids. Such containers face tough transport conditions. They must be capable of bearing heavy weights (as much as six tonnes, as they are often stacked four-high), of withstanding prolonged or violent vibration, and of resisting the forces caused by the liquid splashing around inside, witho...
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!