Court : Himachal Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-03-2006
Reported in : 2006(33)PTC339(NULL)
Surjit Singh, J.1. The present petition, under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 94(e) and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for grant of temporary injunction, has been moved by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 69 of 2005.2. Facts, relevant for the disposal of this petition, may be noticed. The plaintiff/petitioners have filed a suit seeking grant of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from infringing Patent No. 195917, in respect of a device of manually hauling of agriculture produce, granted in their favour on 11.7.2005. It is alleged that the invention was conceptualized visualized by the plaintiff/petitioners in the year 1999. The application for grant of patent was moved on 24.5.2002 and the patent, after making all the necessary inquiries and observance of the procedure, prescribed under the Patents Act and the rules framed thereunder, was granted on 11.7.2005. The patented device is an improvement over a local product known as 'Kilta' mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-27-2006
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 : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-22-2006
Reported in : AIR2007All90
Ajoy Nath Ray, C.J. and Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddhartha Varma for the appellant, Sri B.K. Narain for respondent No. 1 and learned standing counsel.2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the plaintiff-appellant challenging the order of the appellate Court, District Judge, Badaun in Appeal No. 6 of 2006, dated 30th March, 2006 by which order the appeal filed by the defendant against the trial Court's decree passed in Original Suit No. 75 of 1991 dated 4th February. 2006 was admitted.3. The Stamp Reporter of the Court has raised objection regarding maintainability of this special appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also supported the objection and contended that this special appeal is not maintainable under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.4. Sri. S.K. Varma, when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-02-2006
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
Decided on : Aug-18-2006
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 : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Jun-05-2006
Reported in : I(2007)ACC361; 2006ACJ2287; 2006(4)ALD530
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. In furtherance of order dated 20-8-2004 passed by the Full Bench, LPA (SR) No. 87377 of 2003 has been placed before the Larger Bench for determination of the following question of law:Whether, after insertion of amended Section 100A in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') by Act No. 22 of 2002, Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising out of a special enactment 2. The background in which the aforementioned question has been referred to the Larger Bench deserves to be noticed first.3. By an award dated 1-10-1996, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi directed M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/-with interest @ 12% per annum to Sri 5. Surya Prakash Reddy in lieu of the death of his wife Rukmini caused in an accident which took place on 31-5-1991 on Tirupathi - Chandragiri Road. The appeal preferred by M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Sep-27-2006
Reported in : AIR2007Ker57; 2006(4)KLT405
V.K. Bali, C.J.1. The Stewards Association in India, which is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act filed a suit for recovery of the possession of the plaint schedule property from the defendants and also for realisation of mesne profits at Rs. 1,800/- per year. The burden of the plaint was that the plaint schedule properties were acquired by Adolph Kocher, a German Missionary as per registered documents of 1084 and 1088 M.E.. He constructed a building for his residence and missionary work as a result of which a Brethern Sabha was formed. There was a prayer hall in the building which was used as an orphanage after purchase of the property by Kocher. Kocher was arrested during World War No. 1 as he was a German citizen. He however, had gifted the property to Stewards Company Limited, England, which right was transferred to the plaintiff-Association in 1973 by a registered document. One Mr. Adams was staying in this property and was continuing the missionar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition tinder Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Hetero Drugs Ltd., India, on August 22, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland November 14, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirmed by Giorgio P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of July 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyt-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Lakshmi Kumaran & Sridharan, New Delhi on behalf of M/s.Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., India on May 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Mainley of Switzerland on July 27, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Trademark
Decided on : Jan-25-2006
1. An application for patent claiming Switzerland priority date of My 18, 1997 was filed by M/s. Novartis AG on July 17, 1998 for an invention titled "Crystal Modification of A.N.-Phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" and the same was allotted the application No. 1602/MAS/1998.2. A representation by way of opposition under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 as amended by the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 was filed by M/s. Cancer Patients Aid Association., India, on September 26, 2005 with a request for hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003 as amended by Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2005.3. The Applicant through their agents M/s. Remfry & Sagar, New Delhi filed reply statement along with evidence by way of affidavit affirmed by Dr. Paul William Manley of Switzerland October 31, 2005. In their reply statement, the Applicant had requested for a hearing under Rule 55 of the Patents Rules, 2003. They filed another affidavit affirme...
Tag this Judgment!