Court : Andhra Pradesh
..... declaring the advertisement of the 2nd respondent's applications in respect of mrc-7918, mrc-7041 bgii and mrc- 7160 varieties in the "plant variety journal of india" without following the due procedure specified under the provisions contained in sections 19, 20, 21 read with rule 29 and 30 of protection of plant varieties and farmers' rights act, 2001 as illegal and unconstitutional and for other allied reliefs. 2. ..... protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001, the 1st respondent authority came to be constituted for enabling registration of plant varieties and essentially derived varieties ..... that a farmer or a breeder, therefore, need not wait till the competent authority completes the registration of a plant variety in violation of his rights before approaching the ..... to the breach of procedure adopted by the 1st respondent earlier also by the very same writ petitioner, who has raised objections with regard to five varieties while no objections were raised with regard to four other varieties, and hence the fairness and legality of the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent in taking out the advertisement with regard to the applications lodged earlier by the 2nd respondent was the ..... conducting necessary tests and evaluation that the parental material conforms to the standards specified, the 1st respondent is required to take out an advertisement of the application calling for objections from persons interested in the matter, in accordance with section 21 of the said act .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the test to be conducted for evaluation of a variety to be referred under the act shall conform to the criteria of distinctness, uniformity and stability test guidelines published by the authority in the journal of protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority and shall be revised and updated from time to time with the prior information to the central government. ..... pioneer s application for conducting special test was rejected by the registrar, protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority (hereafter registrar ) by an order dated 27.08.2013 on the sole ground that the two varieties of maize (kmh50 and 30v92) were found to conform to the criteria of distinctiveness, uniformity and stability pursuant to the tests conducted in this regard (hereafter dus ). ..... pioneer has also filed an application with protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority (hereafter the authority ) under section 24(5) of the act, inter alia, claiming that kmh50 was identical to 30v92 and the two varieties are one and the same and further w.p. ..... the controversy involved in the present petitions relates to the acceptance of kaveri s application for registration of a variety of maize, referred to as kmh50 under the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001 (hereafter the act ). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the test to be conducted for evaluation of a variety to be referred under the act shall conform to the criteria of distinctness, uniformity and stability test guidelines published by the authority in the journal of protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority and shall be revised and updated from time to time with the prior information to the central government. ..... pioneer s application for conducting special test was rejected by the registrar, protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority (hereafter registrar ) by an order dated 27.08.2013 on the sole ground that the two varieties of maize (kmh50 and 30v92) were found to conform to the criteria of distinctiveness, uniformity and stability pursuant to the tests conducted in this regard (hereafter dus ). ..... pioneer has also filed an application with protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority (hereafter the authority ) under section 24(5) of the act, inter alia, claiming that kmh50 was identical to 30v92 and the two varieties are one and the same and further w.p. ..... the controversy involved in the present petitions relates to the acceptance of kaveri s application for registration of a variety of maize, referred to as kmh50 under the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001 (hereafter the act ). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
..... justice (care and protection of children) act, 2000paragraph-14offences under the emigration act, 1983paragraph-15offences under the passports act, 1967paragraph-16offences under the foreigners act, 1946paragraph-17offences under the copyright act, 1957paragraph-18offences under the trade marks act, 1999paragraph-19offences under the information technology act, 2000paragraph-20offences under the biological diversity act, 2002paragraph-21offences under the protection of plant varieties and farmers' rights act, 2001paragraph-22offences under the environment protection act, 1986paragraph-23offences under the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974paragraph-24offences ..... the validity of section 8(4) has not been tested by the division bench of the andhra pradesh high court, on the touchstone of (i) the constitutional guarantees available to children and women residing in the property and (ii) the statutory protection available to tenants in terms of other enactments.34. ..... with great respect to the division bench of the andhra pradesh high court, the court has not tested the validity of section 8(4) of the act even on the touchstone of the rights as well as plight of the victims of the offences. ..... but unfortunately, the validity of sections 8(4) and 8(6) read with section 9 and the relevant paragraphs of part a and b of the schedule to the act, has not been tested by the andhra pradesh high court from the point of view of their impact upon the victims of a crime. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
..... these cases arise against the backdrop of the protection of plant varieties and farmers' rights act, 2001 (for brevity, 'the act'). ..... , the protection of plant varieties and farmers' rights authority (hereinafter, 'the competent authority') to entertain and process applications from plant breeders, farmers or persons claiming through them for registration of the plant varieties over which rights are sought to be asserted. ..... this legislation was promulgated by the parliament for protecting the intellectual property rights of plant breeders and farmers over plant varieties developed by them. ..... it is also to be remembered that not only prosperous plant breeders but also individual farmers, who assert intellectual property rights over their plant varieties, are entitled to protection under the act. ..... while so, the appellant company filed writ petition no.16892 of 2010 before this court assailing the action of the competent authority and the union of india in not implementing the provisions of the act in terms of conducting proper tests of the plant varieties sought to be registered and causing publication of advertisements as per the prescribed format. ..... it may be noted that under section 10 of the companies act, 1956, the registered office of a company incorporated under the said act would determine the high court which would have jurisdiction for the purposes of that act. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... section 24(5) of the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001, is, therefore, declared ..... protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority and registry is established under section 3; its general functions are outlined in section ..... however, the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights regulations, 2006 prescribes who can be a ..... /2009 & 7102/2011 page 30 protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority. ..... section 24 (5) of the protection of plant varieties & farmers rights act as cast at present may undoubtedly be an adequate remedy to prevent abusive practices (assuming that what is abusive can be defined over a period of time); yet the danger of abuse of the provision itself and the attendant (likely) long term injury to innocent breeders, farmers and those in the business of development of hybrids and plant varieties far outweighs its benefits, in view of the unguided nature of the power, which is destructive of the rule of law and contrary to article 14 of the constitution of ..... that agriculture is dependent on nature unlike industry which is not so dependent and in fact is a product of man made effort, and requires examination of the process at an intellectual level, the union emphasizes that rule 29 (1) (c) of the protection of plant varieties and farmers' right rules ("the rules" hereafter) requires multi location field test for 2 crop seasons for every variety that claims protection. ..... rule 29(6) is to be conducted on a minimum of two .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... cotton plant varieties under the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001 (hereafter called the pv act ).10 ..... related issues are whether any other patent exclusion provision of the patents act, is attracted; whether monsanto s patent rights are unaffected by provisions of the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001. ..... can be (i) defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given genotype of that plant grouping; (ii) distinguished from any other plant grouping by expression of at least one of the said characteristics; and (iii) considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated, which fao (os) (comm) 86/2017 & 76/2017 page 49 of 60 remains unchanged after such propagation, and includes propagating material of such variety, extant variety, transgenic variety, farmers variety and essentially derived variety section 2(za) includes a transgenic variety, such as the one developed by the... ..... plant genetic systems v greenpeace (t0356/93, decided on 21.02.1995) the european enlarged board of appeals held that: if the expression "microbiological process" was broadly interpreted to cover any product of a process conducted in the laboratory at microscopic level and the first plant directly obtained thereby was considered to be the product of a microbiological process, it could not be said that subsequent generations of plants (e.g ..... meant that process or products, that otherwise meet the test of patentability (i.e. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... morphological characters using distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (dus) descriptors as per protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, (ppvfra) guidelines for the hybrids. ..... the reluctance to conduct such studies would risk the health of future generations as well as the farmers right to conduct their agricultural activities in the most suitable manner. ..... such products may be formulated in the form of powders, granules, tablets, capsules, liquids, jelly and other dosage forms but not parenterals, and are meant for oral administration; (ii) such product does not include a drug as defined in clause (b) and ayurvedic, sidha and unani drugs as defined in clauses (a) and (h) of section 3 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and rules made thereunder; (iii) does not claim to cure or mitigate any specific disease, disorder or condition (except for certain health ..... or authorisation served, made, given or granted under this act is being or has been complied with; (c) for the purpose of examining and testing any equipment, industrial plant, record, register, document or any other material object or for conducting a search of any building in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this act or the rules made thereunder has been or is being or is about to be committed and for seizing any such equipment, industrial plant, record, register, document or other material object if he has ..... 2001-2002 to 568 kgs. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001(the act) was thus born. ..... now coming to the sub-rules enacted in pursuance to the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 96 of the said act, chapter iii of the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights rules, 2003 deals with registration of plant variety and consists of rule 24 to 36. ..... we may, however, add that in exercise of a right conferred under section 96 on the central government to make rules, the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights rules, 2003 were enacted and were published in the gazette on 12.09.2003. ..... the criteria for registration of the plant/seed varieties requires a lengthy process that includes field testing of the plant/seeds varieties in different conditions and it is after completing this extensive process, that the government formulated the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights (criteria for distinctiveness, uniformity and stability for registration) regulations, 2009, which were notified on 29.06.2009 and came into force with effect from 30.06.2009. ..... section 19 refers to the tests to be conducted while section 20 refers to the acceptance of an application or amendment thereof. ..... 4527-2010 & 640-2012 page 28 of 40 satisfying the test of that section for condonation of delay. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... said law referring to section 3(f), 3(h) and (j), section 8, section 10 (4) and section 59 (1), submitting that impugned acts on the part of defendants are protected by the provisions of the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001 ( plant varieties act , for short), the said law by virtue of section 92, overriding the patents act, 1970, it affording a right , under section 30, to the use of any variety (of plant grouping) by any person as an initial source for the purpose of growing other varieties as is the activity statedly undertaken by the defendants, the limited corresponding right of the person claiming ownership of the intellectual property right of such variety to claim benefit sharing ..... the plaintiffs argued that the sub-license agreements having been terminated, the (admitted) use of the patented invention protecting the nucleotide sequence by the defendants constitutes infringement of the monopoly granted by the patent and the substantive rights under section 48 of the patents act, the test for assessing such infringement and violation being comparison of the cs (comm) 132/2016 page 64 of 96 granted claim with the impugned ..... obligations on the sub-licensee (the defendants) to submit and correspondingly on the sub-licensor (the plaintiffs) to conduct tests on the hybrid seeds to confirm not only the presence of monsanto technology but also to ensure quality controls, as further explained in exhibit b prescribing the criteria and test methods. .....
Tag this Judgment!