Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-11-2018
..... section 39 of the pv act; yet they would be subject to patent infringement claims. this poses a grave threat to age-old farming practices developed and refined over millennia, in the country. it is submitted that allowing such claims to stand, despite presence of another kind of intellectual property protection under the pv act, despite statutory injunction under the patents act, poses a fao (os) (comm) 86/2017 & 76/2017 page 19 of 60 real threat to food security ..... not violating the impugned patent of monsanto lies within the shelter of section 3 of the patents act. nuziveedu cited sections 3(c), (h) and (j) of the patents act, 1970 which are as follows: a. section 3(c) of the patents act excludes from patentability the mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory or discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature. b.section 3(h) of the patents act excludes from patentability a method of agriculture or horticulture. c. section 3(j) of the patents act excludes from patentability plants and animals in ..... m that fao (os) (comm) 86/2017 & 76/2017 page 36 of 60 governed by cl. (f). if this be the construction, every word used in the clause is given a meaning and no words become a surplusage. in narpatchand a. bhandari v shantilalmoolshankarjani1993 (3) scc351the 75. issue was whether expression landlord under section 13 (1) includes usufructuary mortgagee where tenanted premises were subject of usufructuary mortgage. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-13-2018
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.9519 OF2018(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21859 of 2018) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS N.C. MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. Medical Council of India (in short, the MCI) is in appeal as against the judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the writ petition of the medical college to admit 150 students for the academic year 2018-19 and in view of G.O. dated 31.5.2018 passed by the Government of India granting permission subject to the outcome of the writ petition in view of mandatory interlocutory order dated 29.5.2018 requiring the Government of India to accord approval to the college by 31.5.2018, though the said interlocutory order dated 29.5.2018 also permitting provisional admissions was set aside by this Court in Civil Appeal No.6001 of 2018.2. The case has a chequered history. After the N.C. Medical College had 1 obtained E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-19-2018
$~J- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :08. 02.2018 Pronounced on :19. 02.2018 CS(COMM) 918/2016 SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD ..... Plaintiff Through Mr.Hemant Singh, Ms.Mamta Jha and Mr.Waseem Shuaib Ahmed, Advs. versus LUPIN LTD & ANR ..... Defendants Through Mr.C.M.Lall, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Ankur Sangal & Ms.Pragya Mishra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.IA Nos.19585/2014 (u/O39R1& 2 CPC) & 20124/2014 (u/O39R4CPC) 1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, etc. from dealing with any medicinal preparations under the impugned mark TRI-VOBIT or any other mark which is phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark TRIVOLIB. Other connected reliefs are also sought.2. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed IA No.19585/2014 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. This application along with the suit came up for hearing on 01.10.2014 when this court passed an interi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-09-2018
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.215 OF2005Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Versus Union of India and Another ...Petitioner(s) Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. I N D E X Heading S. No.A. Prologue B. Contentions in the Writ Petition Page No.3 10 C. Stand in the counter affidavit and the 14 applications for intervention D. Background of the Writ Petition D.1 P. Rathinams case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code D.2 Gian Kaurs case The question of unconstitutionality of Section 306 of 18 19 22 2 the Indian Penal Code D.3 The approach in Aruna Shanbaug qua Passive Euthanasia vis--vis India D.4 The Reference E. Our analysis of Gian Kaur F. Our analysis of Aruna Shanbaug qua legislation 30 42 45 51 G. The Distinction between Active and Passive 52 Euthanasia H. Euthanasia : International Position H.1 U.K. Decisions: H.1.1 Airedale Case H.1.2 Late...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-22-2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: January 11th, 2018 Pronounced on:22. d January, 2018 + W.P (C) No.5349/2004 BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, Ms. Urvi Mohan and Mr. Rhishabh Jetley, Advs. Versus BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Manish Sharma with Mr. Ninad Dogra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT % 1. The Batra Hospital Employees Union claims, in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to be aggrieved by an Award, dated 03rd November 2003, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Karkardooma (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), which holds that the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 do not apply to the Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre.2. The Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Hospital) was, admittedly, managed and run by the Ch. Aishi Ram Batra Charitable Trust (he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jan-29-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:29. h January, 2018. CS(COMM) 1683/2016 UNILIN BEHEER B.V. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro and Mr. Shamim Nooreyezdan, Advs. Versus BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Hari Subramaniam and Mr. Sanuj Das, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW IA No.15331/2017 (of defendant u/S151CPC) 1. On 20th December, 2017, the following order was made: 1. The defendant / applicant seeks stay of proceedings in this suit for infringement of patent and for ancillary reliefs, contending that the term of the patent has expired and the defendant / applicant, prior to institution of this suit, had approached the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 for revocation of the patent. The counsel for the plaintiff appears on advance 2. notice.3. I have enquired from the counsel for the defendant / applicant, whether there is any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-23-2018
$~31 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5590/2015 & CM No.10090/2018 % Date of decision :23. d April, 2018 SHAMNAD BASHEER ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari and Mr. N. Sai Vinod, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC for R-1/UOI Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv.with Mrs. Saya Chaudhary, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Prateek Sehrawat, Mr. A. Joyaraj and Mr. Devanshu Khanna, Advs. for Intervenor-Ericsson Mr. Rajiv Kr. Choudhry, Adv. for Intervenor-TEMA Ms. Pritha Srikumar Iyer and Mr. Nishanth Kadur, Advs. for R-4 CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 This writ petition is concerned with issues relating to the working of patents under the Patents Act, 1970. It appears that concerned with W.P.(C)No5590/2015 Page 1 of 4 the several issues relating to Section 146 of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended) read with Rule 131 of Patents Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Jul-17-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:17. 07.2018 + W.P.(C) 11802/2016 and CM Nos. 8215/2017, 8217/2017 and 19029/2017 MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : : Mr Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr Navpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Mr Salil Seth, Mr Pradeep Chhindra and Mr Adhesh Sharma. Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Prateek Dhanda, Mr Waize Ali Noor, Ms Ruchi Jain and Mr Saeed Qadri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company and has filed the present petition impugning the Standing Order No.1687 (E) dated 09.05.2016 (hereafter the impugned notification) passed by the Assistant Director, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereafter NPPA) to the extent that it includes the formulation, TRD Contin 100 mg. tablet CR10(hereafter the Formulation), within the scope of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-31-2018
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on:31. 10.2018 + W.P.(C) 11802/2016 and CM Nos. 8215/2017, 8217/2017 and 19029/2017 MODI-MUNDIPHARMA PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Advocates who appeared in this case: ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr Navpreet Singh Ahluwalia, Mr Salil Seth, Mr Pradeep Chhindra and Mr Adhesh Sharma. : Mr Kirtiman Singh, Mr Prateek Dhanda, Mr Waize Ali Noor, Ms Ruchi Jain and Mr Saeed Qadri. CORAM:-"HONBLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The petitioner is a Pharmaceutical Company and has filed the present petition impugning the Standing Order No.1687 (E) dated 09.05.2016 (hereafter the impugned notification) passed by the Assistant Director, National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (hereafter NPPA) to the extent that it includes the formulation, TRD Contin 100 mg. tablet CR10(hereafter the Formulation), within the scope of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-21-2018
* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: November 10th, 2017 Decided on: February 21, 2018 IA95852017 (u/O XXXIX R12 CPC) in CS(COMM) 556/2017 UPL LIMITED Represented by: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with ..... Plaintiff Ms. Rajeshwari, Mr. Aditya Gupta, Mr. Tahir A.J., Mr. Kumar Chitranshu, Advs. versus PRADEEP SHARMA & ANR ..... Defendants Represented by: Mr. J.Sai Deepak, Mr. Avinash K. Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA1 The plaintiff which is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, weedicides, fumigant, PGR and rodenticides claims that it is the owner of the patent IN20613 (in short IN130, IN19422 (in short IN225 and IN24455 (in short IN551. In the present suit, the claim of the plaintiff is infringement of its three patents and seeks an order of interim injunction in its favour pending hearing of the suit.2. IN225titled a process of preparing a chemically stable synergistic herbicidal composition is a ...
Tag this Judgment!