Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-28-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CTC95; 2004(29)PTC108(Mad)
ORDERR. Balasubramanian, J.1. In all the original applications an ex parte order of injunction was granted by this Court on 20.1.2004. To vacate that ex parte order in each suit, the aggrieved party has filed an application. This application to vacate the injunction stands accompanied by two applications having successive numbers, namely one to stay the operation of the 'Exclusive Marketing Rights', hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'EMR' and the other, to implead the authority, which granted the 'EMR', as a party to the suit. Of course, it must be noticed that in C.S.No. 5/2004 and C.S.No. 6/2004, there is no such application to stay the operation of the 'EMR' and to implead the authority, which issued the said 'EMR', as a party to the suit. The authority, which issued the 'EMR', had filed a counter stating that 'EMR' was justifiably granted. In the context of this Court deciding to hear the originalapplications, where an ex pane order of injunction was granted and the applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : May-17-2004
Tennessee v. Lane - 02-1667 (2004) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2003 TENNESSEE V. LANE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES TENNESSEE v. LANE et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 021667. Argued January 13, 2004Decided May 17, 2004 Respondent paraplegics filed this action for damages and equitable relief, alleging that Tennessee and a number of its counties had denied them physical access to that States courts in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which provides: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation or denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity, 42 U. S. C. 12132. After the District Court denied the States motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds, the Sixth Circuit held the appeal in abeyance pending Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356 . This Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
Reported in : 2005(3)BomCR191; 2005(30)PTC160(Bom)
D.K. Deshmukh, J. 1. The plaintiffs have moved the present Notice of Motion in the suit seeking reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) thereof, inter alia, seeking a restraint order against the Defendants from manufacturing for sale, sell, marketing and exporting their anti cancer drug composed of the 'B-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate salt'' under the brand name 'VEENAT' or any other brand name till such time the exclusive marketing rights granted in favour of the plaintiffs on November 10, 2003 and gazetted on December 13, 2003 subsists. The plaintiffs also seek an order of appointment of a court receiver in terms of prayer (e).2. The plaintiffs submit that they are the holders of Exclusive Marketing Rights (hereinafter referred to 'EMR') granted under Chapter IV-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). Section 24B of the Act deals with grant of EMR.It is submitted that since the plaintiffs have been granted in EMR, akin to a patent right by an expert st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Apr-16-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR896; 2004(5)BomCR50; 2004(4)CTC241; 2004(3)MhLj706
R.M. Lodha, J. 1. The Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice by order dated January 15, 2004 passed in the present Letters Patent Appeal observed that the decision of the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) in Shri Chandreshwar Bhuthanath Devasthan of Paroda v. Subiraj Prabhakar Naik and Ors., 2003 Vol 105(2), Bombay Law Reporter, 915 deserves reconsideration.2. The present Letters Patent Appeal presented on January 6, 2004 is directed against the order dated December 18, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge summarily dismissing the First Appeal arising out of the suit for possession filed on September 9, 1992.3. In Chandreshwar Bhuthanath the Division Bench of this court (Goa Bench) held that Section 100A as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 shall have retrospective effect and summarised its reasoning thus:'46. We are summarising our reasonings as follows for our conclusion that the aforesaid C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, perta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-21-2004
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. In these Letters Patent Appeals which are pending before this court, a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that in view of the amended provisions of law contained in Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, these Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable, 2. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and the question raised is disposed of by this common Order. 3. As the facts are not in dispute in this preliminary objection, we will not revert to the same and we propose to dispose of the matter on the point raised before us. The only factual aspect involved is that all these Letters Patent Appeals were filed and pending before this court as on 1.7.2002, the date on which the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 were made effective or operative. 4. Section 100A as substituted by the above referred amendment Acts reads as follows : '100A. No further appeal in cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-2004
Reported in : 2004(2)ARBLR280(Madras); 2004(2)CTC334; (2004)2MLJ554
1. The above appeal is filed against the order dated 19.12.2000 in C.M.A.No.874 of 1998 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.2. We need not go into the merits of the case, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the above appeal.3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, second appeal is not maintainable, as barred under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. To appreciate the said condition, it is beneficial to extract Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which reads as follows:' Section 39: Appealable orders. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act and from none others to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the court passing the order: An order- (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-05-2004
Reported in : JT2004(5)SC117; 2004(5)SCALE574; (2004)6SCC126
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.6.1999 of a Full Bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby Letters Patent Appeal preferred by respondent no.4 Gurcharan Singh was allowed, the judgment and order dated 13.8.1992 of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the appellants Pohla Singh and others was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed.2. Dhanna Singh (father of Gurcharan Singh respondent no.4) had been allotted land by way of a military grant in Sind (Pakistan). On partition of the country he migrated to India. He was initially allotted 79.39 standard acres of land in Village Budhlada, Tehsil Mansa, District Bhatinda which on account of report of Patwari in some Revenue Proceedings was reduced to 68.68 standard acres. In the year 1955, The Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was promulgated and section 3 thereof provides that the permissible limit shall mean 'thirty standard ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-20-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD83; 2004(2)ALT764
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 5-11-2002, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kumool, dismissing the application in E.A. No. 373 of 2002 in E.P, No. 460 of 1997 in O.P. No. 132 of 1991, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 450 of days in filing an application for restoration of the said E.P.2. The petitioner is the decree-holder and the respondent is the judgment-debtor.3. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as 'the decree-holder and judgment-debtor' respectively.4. The factual background in short is that in Land Acquisition Proceedings, some amount along with additional market value had been awarded by the Civil Court towards compensation in O.P. No. 132 of 1991, In order to recover the said amount, the present E.P., had been filed by the decree-holder after a lapse of more than eleven years, but within the period of limitation. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-30-2004
Reported in : 2004(4)CTC327; (2004)4MLJ370
ORDERB. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.1. These matters relate to retail vending of I.M.F.L. (Indian Made Foreign Liquor) in the State of Tamil Nadu. Block Period licenses introduced by G.O. Ms. Nos. 113, 115 and 120, dated 22.6.2001 had been the source of litigation since 2001. Firstly, it was the increase of shops from 6000 to 7000, which was upheld by judgment dated 21.12.2001 in R.Selvaraj v. Government of T.N. etc. and Others., 2002 WLR 586 and nextly it was when the Block Period system was sought to be given a go-by by issuance of G.O. Nos. 128, 129 and 130, dated 8.7.2002, whereby the number of shops were further increased and the recategorisation was made for levy of privilege fee along with other changes including the introduction of lot system by cancelling the Block Period licenses, which was the subject matter of litigation in The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Etc. And Another v. K. Vinayakamoorthy and others, 2002 (3) CTC 257 : 2002 (3) L.W. 317. All changes were upheld in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Mar-24-2004
Reported in : (2004)137PLR647
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.2. The claimants who were dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the leaned District Judge, Patiala, dated 2.1.1989 enhancing the compensation payable to the appellants at the of Rs. 77,772,80 paise for Chahi land Rs. 62,720/- for Rausli/Dakar land and Rs. 43,904/- for gair mumkin have preferred the present Regular First Appeal before this Court.3. The Government of Punjab issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), acquiring land in Village Hadaitpura, Tehsil Rajpura for a public purposes namely construction of SYL Canal. The land measuring approximately 5.49 acres was acquired for that purpose. The Collector, vide his award dated 20th May, 1986, awarded the following compensation to the claimants:-i) Chahi Rs. 62,000/- per acreii) Rousli/Dakar Rs. 55,000/- per acreiii) Gair Mumkin Rs. 35,000/- per acre.4. The claimants preferred refer...
Tag this Judgment!