Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1985Cal334
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J.1. The petitioner Guest Keen Williams Ltd., cany on business in manufacture and sale of divers equipments and products, connected with the operation of the railways in India and abroad. According to the petitioner, sometime before 1976 the petitioner invented a rail clip adapter for the purpose of fitting in the railway track assembly. On the 8th June, 1976 the petitioner applied for grant of a patent in favour of the petitioner in regard to the said adapter, being application for patent No. 145211 and along with the said application filed a complete specification of the said adapter. Thereafter the respondent No. 4, that is the Research, Designs & Standards Organisation of the Ministry of Railways, filed an opposition to the said application on 31st Jan., 1979 inter alia on the ground of prior public knowledge and prior public use in India of the petitioner's invention as claimed. The said opposition was filed in accordance with Rules 35 and 36 of the Patents Ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on :05. 09.2013 Judgment pronounced on :23. 09.2013 + W.P.(C) 1631/2013 PUNEET KAUSHIK AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv with Mr Praveen Anand, Ms. Divya Vijan, Ms. Ayushi Kiran & Ms. Neeti Wilson, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr. Rajnish K. Jha, Adv. & Dr. Kavita Taunk, Assistant Controller of Patents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN V.K. JAIN, J.The petitioners before this Court claim to have filed on 14.9.2012, in the Patents Office (India) at New Delhi, an international (PCT) application in terms of Rule 18.3 of the PCT Rules, enclosing therewith (i) Form-25 (in duplicate) on behalf of petitioner no.1 Puneet Kaushik (ii) Power of Attorney for Form-25 (copy) (iii) PCT Request along with Declaration of Inventorship (in duplicate) (iv) PCT Power of Attorney (v) complete specification along with drawings (in duplicate) (vi) PCT fee c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) 458/2009 % Reserved on:11. h January, 2013 Pronounced on:15. h March, 2013 RECKITT BENKISER INDIA LTD Through: ...... Appellant Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sachdev, Advocate. Versus WYETH LTD. Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Pravin Anand, Advocate with Mr. Vaishali Mittal, Advocate and Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J.MEHTA, J 1.Reference has been made to this Full Bench, by a Division Bench of this court, vide the reference order dated 8.10.2010 in this FAO(OS), for this larger Bench to consider as to whether a Division Bench of this court in the case of Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Amit Jain & Anr. 2009 (39) PTC 10.(Del) (DB) has correctly held that publication abroad by existence of the design in the records of the Registrar of designs which is open for public inspection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:23. 05.2014 Judgment pronounced on:19. 12.2014 LPA8842013 & CM43302014 PUNEET KAUSHIK & ANR. ..... Appellants versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellants : Mr Pravin Anand and Ms Divya Vijan Bajaj. For the Respondents : Mr Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with Mr M.P.Singh and Dr Kavita Taunk for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL JUDGMENT SIDDHARTH MRIDUL , J1 The instant appeal challenges the order dated 23.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)1631/2013. The writ petition was disposed of in the following terms:For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to grant within six (6) weeks from today, 27.09.2012 as the international filing date in respect of the PCT application submitted by the petitioners to the Indian Patent Office on 14.09.2012 and assign a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 94(2001)DLT865
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. 1. The souring of relationship between joint venture partner's has given rise to the present dispute where the respondent is aggrieved by the alleged infringement of its patents by the appellant. A suit was thus filed by the respondent herein against the appellant for mandatory injunction from manufacturing and advertising as its own and selling the products of respondent for which respondent has registered patents and design, in India or any where in the world for the product range of electric contractors and accessories known as the D2 range. The present appeal arises from the impugned order dated 27.11.2000 of the learned Single Judge allowing interim application of the respondent is No. 8522/99 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the order dated 27.11.2000 dismissing is No. 6504/2000 filed by the appellant after the judgment had been reserved by the learned Single Judge on the injunction application. 2. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1974Delhi771; 1974RLR335
H. L. Anand, J.(1) The question that arises in this appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter called 'the High Court Act') is as to its maintainability either under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act or under Section 10 of the High Court Act or under clause 10 of the letters Patent. The appeal has been filed in the following circumstances : (2) The appellant had entered into a contract with the Regional Director (Food), Northern Region, New Delhi for handling/transporting work at Central Storage Depot, Shahjahanpur. The contract contained an arbitration clause and pursuant to certain disputes that arose between the parties, the same were referred to an Arbitrator in terms of the contract who, by an Award made on December 6, 1966 awarded a sum of Rs. 78.212.20 in favor of the appellant. On the same day, the Arbitrator issued a notice to the appellant and the Union of India, resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1626; 2002(1)ARBLR691(SC); JT2002(3)SC442; (2002)2PLR225; 2002(3)SCALE248; (2002)4SCC447; [2002]2SCR847
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. These appeals arise out of the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1999 passed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in a bunch of appeals preferred by the present appellant before us. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question that falls for our consideration in these appeals is about the maintainability of appeal before the Division Bench against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, rejecting the application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree making the Award Rule of the Court. The other question is as to whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the proceedings for making the award Rule of the Court since the District Courts of Asansol had also been moved by the appellant to issue notice to the Arbitrator, under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940, for filing of the award in the Asansol Court.2. It appears that the appellant, namely the Union of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
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 : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2007Cal260,2008(1)ARBLR83(Cal),(2007)3CALLT424(HC)
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J.1. The above appeal has been preferred against a judgment and order dated 17th September, 2003 passed by a learned single Judge in Execution Case No. 28 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Judge has granted reliefs in terms of prayers in column 10 of the Tabular Statement enforcing a foreign award under the provisions of Section 49 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred in short as the said Act). This appeal was admitted by a judgment and order dated 19th September, 2003 by the Division Bench of this Court presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Seth and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Sinha (as their Lordships then were) subject to the question of maintainability and preliminary objection. By this order no formal paper book was asked to be filed dispensing with other formalities and treating the application as informal paper book, however, liberty was granted to include additional papers in the informal supplementary pape...
Tag this Judgment!