Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2007(2)CHN713
Pranab Kumar Deb, J.1. The two revisional applications being C.O. No. 4305 of 2005 and C.O. No. 866 of 2006 filed by the Bijul Pharma-Chem (P) Ltd. have been heard along with the revisional application being C.O. No. 3287 of 2005 filed by M/S. E. R. Squibb & Sons LLC The revisional application being C.O. No. 4305 of 2005 has been directed against the order dated 28.10.05, whereby the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the prayer portion of the plaint was rejected. The revisional application being No. 866 of 2006 was directed against the order dated 28.02.06 passed by the learned District Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 237 of 2004, whereby the prayer for extension of the period of supply was rejected. The revisional application being No. 3287 of 2005 was filed by M/s. Squibb & Sons LLC challenging the order dated 12th May, 2005, in Misc. Appeal No. 237 of 2004, whereby the learned District Judge, Howrah was pleased to extend the period of supply of goods in terms of the cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2006(3)CHN577
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.1. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated December 28, 2004 rejecting their application for exclusive marketing right under provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, Section 24A.2. On August 25, 1998 they submitted an application for patent of invention for the substances indicated in the fifteen claims mentioned in their application. Such application for patent was made under Section 5(2) of the Patents Act, 1970. During pendency of that application, on August 30, 2000 they submitted an application for grant of exclusive marketing right of the substances for which they had claimed patent.3. In terms of provisions in Section 24A of the Patents Act, 1970, the Controller sent the application for patent to an examiner for making report to him whether the inventions were not inventions within the meaning of the Patents Act, 1970, Section 3. The examiner submitted his report dated July 28, 2000 that subs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1989)1CALLT426(HC),93CWN812
Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J.1. This is an application for probate of the last will and testament of Smt. Tarak Bala Dasi. The petitioner is the sole executrix named in the last, will and testament of the deceased Smt. Tarak Bala Dasi.2. The deceased a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law died on 20th November, 1985 at No. 2, Amrita Lall Bose Street, Calcutta within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court. The deceased left Will and Testament in Bengali, dated 23rd February, 1978 and the said Will and Testament was registered at the Calcutta Registry Office. By the said Will and Testament the petitioner was appointed by the testatrix as the sole executrix. It is alleged in the petition that the testatrix left the property, within the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of this Court and the testatrix was also Shebait of the deity of Sree Sree Naru Gopal Jew located at No. 2, Amrita Lall Bose Street, Calcutta which is also situate within th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2007)1CALLT227(HC)
Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.1. One Nirmal Kumar Das died leaving him surviving the parties above named by making a will. The widow, younger son and daughter being the respondents above named applied for letters of administration in this Court with a copy of the will annexed. The elder son. the applicant abovenamed, lodged caveat.2. The present application was filed by the elder son for dismissal of the application for letters of administration being P.L.A.N0. 355 of 2001 on the ground that this Court lacked territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The application for letters of administration was filed by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the deceased had his permanent place of abode a 25/5A, Anathdeb Lane, Calcutta outside the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as well as the City Civil Court, Calcutta. The place of abode within the territorial jurisdiction of District Judge, 24 Parganas (North). The deceased, however, left immovable property at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1999)1CALLT52(HC)
V.K. Gupta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 16.9.97 passed by the learned single Judge of this court (Sujit Kumar Sinha. J) whereby a decree in terms of an arbitration award has been passed. Facts leading to the filing of the appeal arc that the respondent R.C. Banerjee had lodged claims with the arbitrator Shri R.M. Moitra in respect of Contract No. 57 of 1983-84 from the office of the Superintendent Engineer, public Works Department, Northern Circle, Govt of West Bengal, Jalpalgurl. In a detailed speaking Award the said arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs. 25.04.520/- in favour of the respondent by allowing his various claims against the appellants. The arbitrator however had rejected all the counter claims of the appellants. The award was passed along with interest. Including pendentellte Interest. Whereas the principal sum award was Rs. 25.04.520/- the interest calculated was Rs. 34,25,360/-. In the award the arbitrator had also awarded costs of Rs. 60,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Surinder Singh Nijjar, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 6th February, 2009 rendered in W.P. No. 477(w) of 2009. By the aforesaid judgment, the Learned Single Judge has passed the following operative directions:On this petition being received, an interim order was made staying all further proceedings before the patent office. Since the petitioner says that its appeal from the order dated November 7, 2008 is pending and the petitioner has not had an opportunity of presenting its case before the appellate tribunal, the hearing of the private respondent's objection to the patent will remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from date or the first opportunity that the petitioner is afforded to make a prayer for an interim order in the appeal, whichever is earlier. If the petitioner cannot persuade the appellate tribunal to allot it a date for hearing its interim prayer within the time stipulated, it will be open to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : LC2009(2)323
Sanjib Banerjee, J.1. The petitioner holds a patent for a process of treating exhaust gas emission produced during the combustion of coal in a coal combustion plant for reducing suspended particulate matter. The application to protect the invention was made in January of 1999 and the patent was sealed in the petitioner's favour on April 26, 2005 whereupon the grant dated back to the time of the application. The petitioner's essential complaint is the illegal procedure adopted by the controller of patents to insist on hearing an objection of the fifth respondent to the patent without first taking up the petitioner's application for amendment of the patent.2. The petitioner maintains that it is the application for amendment that had to be taken up first and questions the controller's rationale to reject the proposed amendment 'for the time being.' The immediate grievance and the foundation for this petition are somewhat different.3. The writ petition is being disposed of without calling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal725,152Ind.Cas.914
Panckridge, J.1. The circumstances in which this Rule has been issued upon the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, and upon the Controller of Patents are as follows:The National Carbon Company, Incorporated, carry on business in New York, where they manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights and electric torches. They are the grantees of Indian Patent No. 17148 of 1930. In the specification, which was accepted on 8th December 1930, the invention is described as relating 'to dry cells and particularly to improved means of closing and sealing such cells.' I shall hereafter refer to the National Carbon Company, Incorporated, as 'the patentees.2. The Bright Star Battery Company are incorporated in the United States of America, and they also manufacture and export dry cell batteries for flashlights. They offer their goods for sale in India through Messrs. Brough & Co., a firm carrying on business in Bombay. In December 1931, the patentees instituted a suit on the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1978Cal249,82CWN313
M.N. Roy, J.1. This is an application for leave to file an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and decree dated Feb. 24, 1977, made in G. A. No. 505 of 1972, affirming thereby the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Alipore, in Title Appeal No. 709 of 1971.2. The point involved in this case is whether after the incorporation of the amendment by the Civil P. C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, an appeal, out of a proceeding initiated earlier would be maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.3. The Respondent Opposite Parties are admittedly joint owners of premises no. 8, Ashutosh Mukherjee Road (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), where there are several tenants. Three of the flats in the said premises were let out to the appellant petitioner, who is in Scooter business. A suit being Title Suit No, 266 of 1969, was filed against the appellant petitioner for permanent injunction restraining her and her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
ORDER SHEET G.A.No.868 of 2016 A.P.O.T.No.84 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE FUTURE MOBILES & ACCESSORIES LTD.Versus M/S.SANJEEVANI HEALTH & LIFESTYLE PVT.LTD.BEFORE : The Honble JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE -AndThe Honble JUSTICE SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI Date : 20th May, 2016. Appearance : Mr.Arindam Mukherjee with Mr.Navneet Misra, Adversus Mr.Debdutta Sen, Adv.In this appeal, the appellant has challenged an order dated 5th February, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the appellants application for review of an earlier order dated 8th November, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act. The respondent and the appellant entered into two agreements, both dated 6th December, 2008, one of which was a sub-lease agreement, whereby the respondent agreed to let out 1063 square feet of super built up area in the ground floor of City Centre M...
Tag this Judgment!