Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-16-2011
1. The question in this bunch of Appeals concerns the legal proprietary of judicial directions for the removal of an arbitrator even before the publishing of an Award. Several judgments of our esteemed Single Benches have been cited before us, a perusal of which manifests the existence of a polarity of opinion. On one side of the watershed is the view that assertions as to the de jure or de facto incompetence of the Arbitral Tribunal must immediately be addressed by the Court, and in deserving cases remedied, whilst on the other side is the contrary view that the statutorily provided procedure postulates an immediate remonstration but a deferred assailment of the Award, inter alia on this ground, by way of an invocation of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act for short). 2. At the threshold, an objection has been lodged to the maintainability of the Appeals on the ground that Section 37 of the A&C Act provides for such remedy only against orders (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-17-2011
1. The fight over ownership of the shares of an airline, whose aircrafts ply at high altitude at sub zero temperatures, has generated a lot of heat and litigation which has led to the filing of these appeals. Both the Appeals are filed for challenging the Judgment and Order dated 4th May, 2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J) in Execution Application No. 161 of 2009 with Chamber Summons Nos. 551/09, 729/09, 603/10 & 477/11 and Notice No. 734 of 2009 in Arbitration Award dated 12 April 2007. The Appellants in Appeal No. 345 of 2011 (Jet Airways (India) Limited) was the first Claimant, whereas the Appellants in the cross-Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Mr. Subrata Roy Sahara & ors.) were the second Claimants in the proceedings of Arbitration to which a reference would be made in due course. 2. Initially, the second Claimants being the Appellants in Appeal No. 456 of 2011 (Appeal (Lodg.) No. 293 of 2011) had alone filed their Appeal and on 6th May, 2011, we had passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-08-2011
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 : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-29-2011
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 : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-28-2011
1. This is the second round of litigation involving the Petitioners challenge to a decision dated 16th March 2001 passed by the Directorate General of Health Services (`DGHS) in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (`MHFW), Government of India, Respondent No. 5 withdrawing the customs duty exemption certificate (`CDEC) issued to the Petitioner for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty and additional duty of customs for importing/acquiring medical equipments for treatment of patients at the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital („SGRH) in New Delhi. Background facts 2. The Petitioner Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society (GRTS) is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is running the SGRH, a charitable institution, since 1954. According to the Petitioner, it does not have any corpus fund and all the income and profit from the SGRH is invested for the development of the SGRH. Further, the GRTS does not get any grant from any authority. 3. It is stated that o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-06-2011
1. The applicant challenges the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Thane below Ex.57 and the order dated 1.3.2011 passed below Ex.133 in Civil Suit No.1/2005. 2. There have been several rounds of litigation between the parties which have not only reached to this Court, but also upto the Apex Court. 3. Bare necessary facts for adjudication of present application are as under: The respondents-plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit bearing No.1/2010 in the Court of learned District Judge, Thane claiming infringement of patent and for an order of injunction restraining the defendant-applicant and defendant No.2 from infringing the plaintiffs' patent by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling the impugned product. The suit was filed on 11.1.2010. The writ of summons was served on the defendant on 4.3.2010, written statement came to be filed by the present applicant on 20.3.2010. It appears that subsequently counter claim came to be filed on 8.4.2010 thereby seek...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-31-2011
Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF LELAND STANFORD JUNIORUNIV. V. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY v . ROCHE MOLECULARSYSTEMS, INC., etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit No. 091159.Argued February 28, 2011Decided June 6, 2011 In 1985, a small California research company called Cetus began to develop methods for quantifying blood-borne levels of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS. A Nobel Prize winning technique developed at Cetus known as PCR was an integral part of these efforts. In 1988, Cetus began to collaborate with scientists at Stanford Universitys Department of Infectious Diseases to test the efficacy of new AIDS drugs. Dr. Holodniy joined Stanford as a research fellow in the department around that time. When...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2011
1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes1. In this public interest litigation preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though number of issues have been raised, yet on a considered scrutiny and regard being had to the proponements advanced at the bar, we are disposed to think that three principal issues arise for consideration, namely, whether the doctors, interns and junior residents in AIIMS can go on strike for whatever reason and further coerce the willing doctors not to discharge their duty on any count whatsoever; whether the competent authorities in charge of the said institutions are accountable to take appropriate action against the erring doctors on proper identification or show leniency for such transgression and delinquency; and whether the report submitted by the Committee headed by Professor Sukha Deo Thorat (known ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-08-2011
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes ORDERC.M. APPL No. 1695/2011Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of.WP (Civil) No. 801/2011 & CM APPL No. 1694/20111. An interesting question of law involving the interpretation of Section 11-B (1) and (4) of the Patents Act, 1970 (Act) and Rule 24 B of the Patents Rules 2003 (Rules) arises in this writ petition.2. With the consent of Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing on advance notice for the Respondent, this petition has been heard finally.3. The Petitioner is a Corporation organized under the laws of Japan. It is stated that the Petitioner has the worlds top class technology in the field of medium-high grade steel where high workability, rust prevention performance and weld strength ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB
Decided on : Aug-10-2011
(Circuit Bench Sitting at Kolkata) ORDER No.111/2011 D.P.S. PARMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER (PATENTS) This appeal is filed under section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 10th August,2009, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing the appellants divisional patent application No. 1191/KOL/2005 dated 28.12.2005 under section 15 of the Act. 2. Patent Application No. 1191/Kol/2005 was filed by LG ELECTRONICS, INC, REPUBLIC OF KOREA as a divisional application divided out of the patent application No. 489/KOl/2004 dated 16.08.2004 claiming priority from a Korean Application dated 18.08.2003 for their invention relating to Suction Silencer and Compress therewith on 28.12.2005 for grant of a patent. The Respondent-2 examined the application and the First Examination Report (FER) was issued by the Respondent-2 under Section 12 and 13 of the Act on 27.05.2008. FER dated 27.05.2008 inter alia comprises the following techn...
Tag this Judgment!