Court : Delhi
..... of which are separately defined.45. ms. singh disputed that the subject patent was wrongly granted because of a potential overlap of protection under the pv act. it is argued that in the patent amendment act of 2005 the pre-existing section 5 of the patents act, vis- -vis inventions where only methods or processes of manufacture patentable stood repealed; the expression invention in section 2(1)(j) was ..... substituted. now an invention means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application . section 5 before the 2002 amendment stood thus:-" 5 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... to the arbitrator to fix the cost of arbitration and also specify the party entitled to such cost and the party who shall pay such cost. section 31a of the act (as amended), states that as a general rule, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the cost to the successful party. this, in my opinion, is the correct ..... 2017 page 19 the arbitral award would be liable to be set aside on the ground that it is contrary to justice . xxxxx 42. in the 1996 act, this principle is substituted by the patent illegality principle which, in turn, contains three subheads:42. 1. (a) a contravention of the substantive law of india would result in the death knell ..... be and after-thought, make-believe or lacking incredibility, the matter must be set at rest then and there. 22. in the present case, the learned arbitrator committed a patent illegality in not requiring sil to prove through some credible evidence its allegation. his finding that sil omp (comm.) no.377/2017 page 23 signed the ndc on the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... is no question of it being enforced by courts. it is only orders which can be enforced in courts which can be said to be having force of law. (madras amendment) act, 1948, in the same vein, in state of assam vs. ajit kumar sharma air1965sc1196it was held that once the rules framed by the university were found to be not ..... not required to frame in the first place, would not have the force of law as delegated legislation deriving its authority from either the parent act or the rules framed thereunder. its amendment even if made to act from an anterior date, would not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review of this court. at the same time, this court is ..... its council meeting held on 27.04.2010. it is argued that his name could not have been included in the list of experts approved on 08.06.2011. this patent illegality, submits ms. jain, vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings thereby nullifying the dc s decision.8. it is further urged by the appellant, that the defect of lack of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... communication, the petitioner was told that its request could not be taken on record as the fee payable had been submitted in the form of a cheque whereas the amended rules i.e., patent amendment rules of 2016 (hereafter 2016 rules ) required an applicant to pay the requisite fee only via demand draft/ banker s cheque or cash. furthermore, it was ..... irregularity under rule 1371. therefore, in the given facts and circumstances of the 1 137. powers of controller generally. any document for the amendment of which no special provision is made in the act may be amended and any irregularity in procedure which in the opinion of the controller may be obviated without detriment to the interests of any person, may ..... 2.2011, passed in w.p.(c) 801/2011. this judgment is also distinguishable on facts as it deals with the interplay of sections 11b and 57 (5) of the patents act, 1970 and rule 24b of 2003 rules. though, there is a reference to rule 137, it arises in a different w.p. (c) no.3250/2017 page 8 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 9. the provision of order vi rule 17 cpc was amended by amending act of cpc of 2002 whereby entitlement of a party to amend the pleadings was restricted. this new position was as against the earlier position of law prior to ..... to the defendants license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (frand) terms and conditions?. opp (viii) whether the defendants are unwilling licencee?. opp (ix) whether the suit patents are invalid in nature and are liable to be revoked in the light of the grounds raised by the defendants in its counter-claim?. opd (x) whether the defendants are ..... m/s google inc which entity has been granted a valid license by the plaintiffs in the suit, therefore the defendants are not guilty of infringement of the patents of the plaintiffs which are subject matter of the present suit. in essence, the defendants seek to add a defence and a plea that the technology with respect .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... by virtue of the said arrangement renders the impugned award susceptible to challenge under section 34 of the act.14. there is no dispute that the petitioners were fully aware of the said arrangement at the material time but had taken no steps to amend their statement of defence, which was filed prior to assotech and idbi entering into the said arrangement ..... singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned award was patently erroneous, as the arbitral tribunal had failed to consider the petitioners contention that they were discharged of their obligations under their personal guarantees by virtue of section 135 of the contract act. he contended that the arbitral tribunal had erred in faulting the petitioners for not .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... meaning or purport hereof ( dispute ), such dispute shall be finally resolved by arbitration. such arbitration shall be conducted the provisions of the indian arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 or any amendment or reenactment thereof by a single arbitrator to be appointed by the lender. the venue of arbitration shall be ___ mumbai _ and the arbitration shall be conducted ..... the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction to alter the character o.m.p. (comm) 253/2017 page 2 of 8 of the agreement and, therefore, the impugned award is patently illegal.8. lastly, he submitted that the agreement was not registered and, therefore, the arbitration clause contained in the agreement was not binding.9. the first and foremost ..... with interest.22. in view of the above, this court is unable to accept that the impugned award offends the fundamental policy of indian law or is patently illegal.23. the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. vibhu bakhru, j february28 2018 rk o.m.p. (comm) 253/2017 page 8 of 8 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... to pay or reimburse, such amounts as may be necessary to cause or observe, or for non-observance of the provisions stipulated in the notifications/bye laws/acts/rules/regulations including amendments, if any, on the part of the contractor, the engineer/ employer shall also have right to recover from the contractor any sum required or estimated to ..... (jv):2013. (4) arb. l.r. 61 (delhi) (db) rendered the impugned award.12. the learned counsel appearing for the nhai contends that the impugned award is patently illegal and also contrary to the express terms of the agreement. he emphasized that clause 34.2 of the copa had expressly included the cess ..... 04.09.2008 was issued by the state government (labour department) calling upon various departments to deposit the cess levied under the cess act.7. the nhai awarded the contract to the respondent on 20.10.2005.8. the petitioner commenced deducting the cess from the interim payments certificates (ipc) issued to the respondent from 2007 onwards.9. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... (lifts) because the later is not really an execution of work but only a work of operation & maintenance. this lacuna was realized by union of india and proposed to amend the contract by dividing it into phases. phase -1 for completion of all work except schedule 'a' section xvi and phase ii for schedule 'a' section xvi by ..... except work mentioned in schedule a section xvi. it is further contended that the arbitrator has mis-directed himself as he has failed to consider the effect of the amendment to the contract signed by the respondent on 10th october, 2012.10. i have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, however, i am unable ..... 11 15. in associate builders vs. dda, (2015) 3 scc49the supreme court again emphasized that though contravention of section 28(3) of the act by the arbitrator would fall under the principle of patent illegality , the same is to be understood with a caveat that if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... cognizable as was evidenced by the pmla amendment act 20 of 2005 by which section 45 of the pmla stood amended with effect from 1st july 2005. the failure to amend the heading of section 45 of pmla to bring it in line with the amendment was perhaps inadvertent. relying on guntaiah v. hambamma (2005) 6 scc228he submitted that the marginal notes ..... court is conscious that in vakamulla chandrashekhar v. enforcement directorate (supra) a division bench of this court came to the opposite conclusion and held that notwithstanding the 2005 amendment to section 45 pmla, there is no positive indication in section 45 that the w.p.(crl) 363/2018 page 19 of 32 offences under the pmla ..... remand the magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters. this the state has failed to do. the remand orders are patently routine and appear to have been made mechanically. all that mr. chagla has said is that if the arrested persons wanted to challenge their legality the high .....
Tag this Judgment!