Court : Chennai
..... 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 ..... grounds on which the petitioners in all these writ petitions assail the impugned orders, are:-(i) that the order of the director under section 5(1) and the order of the adjudicating authority under section 8(3) were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without providing adequate opportunity of being heard; and(ii) that without deciding the question of independent ownership of the properties, the respondents have attached the properties owned by the family members ..... a look at the statement of objects and reasons and also trace the historical basis for the political declaration and global program of action adopted by the general assembly, it could be seen that the concern of the global community which led to the above resolutions, was about the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and the huge amount of money generated from .....
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. ..... ergo, given the ubiquitous and far reaching effects of the activities of the competent authority in exercise of its functions and the fetters placed thereon under the act and the rules framed thereunder, we are unable to agree with the learned single judge that no part of the cause of action arose within the territories of this state. ..... in legal parlance the expression 'cause of action' is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in ..... 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 : Andhra Pradesh
..... in accordance with the provisions of 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. ..... a writ of mandamus is solicited for 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. ..... the division bench clearly held 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 competent court. ..... canvassed with regard 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 subject matter of pending ..... that is how the doctrine has long been used as a doctrine of general application. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority and registry is established under section 3; its general functions are outlined in section 8. ..... 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 india. ..... (c) 7102/2011 challenge the vires of section 24(5) of the protection of plant varieties & farmers rights act (hereafter "the act"). in w.p. ..... it is quite apparent that in consonance with its objectives, the act made numerous provisions elaborately spelling out and protecting breeders and farmers rights in respect of new varieties and even extant varieties and plant species, seeds etc. ..... section 24(5) of the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001, is, therefore, declared void. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... plant varieties under the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001 (hereafter called the pv act ..... similarly a case of infringement by use (section 48(a) of the patents act, 1970) of the invention in claims 26-27 is automatically made out since nuziveedu admitted that their cotton varieties and hybrids contain the dna sequences of claims 25-27 of the suit patent and that they are taking full advantage of the functionality of insect tolerance arising solely from the use ..... pioneer hi-bred, (supra) the supreme court of canada held that the commissioner correctly rejected a patent application claiming a new variety of soybean resulting from artificial cross-breeding and 14guidelines for examination of biotechnology applications for patent, office of the controller general of patents, designs and trade marks, march 2013, available at: http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/portal/ipoguidelinesmanuals/1_38_1_4-biotech- guidelines.pdf(last accessed on 03.03.2017 ..... of joint ownership of intellectual property rights to the national biodiversity authority, or where benefit claimers are identified, to such benefit claimers; (b) transfer of technology; (c) location of production, research and development units in such areas which will facilitate better living standards to the benefit claimers; (d) association of indian scientists, benefit claimers and the local people with research and development in biological resources and bio-survey and bio-utilisation; (e) setting up of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... , uniformity and stability (dus) descriptors as per protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, (ppvfra ..... by the food authority; x x x (zw) substance includes any natural or artificial substance or other matter, whether it is in a solid state or in liquid form or in the form of gas or vapour; (zx) sub-standard - an article of food shall be deemed to be sub-standard if it does not meet the specified standards but not so as to render the article of food unsafe;23.3 it would be necessary to refer to section 22 of the said act, which deals with gm foods, organic foods, functional foods, proprietary ..... expert members : director general indian council of agricultural research, director general indian council of medical research, director general council of scientific and industrial research, director general health servies, plant protection adviser, directorate of plant protection, quarantine and storage, chairman, central pollution control board and three outside experts ..... 2001 ..... be culled out from the decisions of this court: (i) a statutory functionary exercising a power cannot be said to have delegated his functions merely by deputing a responsible and competent official to enquire and report, as that is the ordinary mode of exercise of any administrative power; (ii) if a statutory authority empowers a delegate to undertake preparatory work, and to take an initial decision in matters entrusted to it, but retains in its own hands the power to approve or disapprove the decision .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... protection of plant varieties and farmers rights act, 2001(the act ..... dated 21.02.2013, the same officer has filed another affidavit affirmed on 28.02.2013 stating that the ipab has given its consent for invoking the transitional provision under section 59 of the said act and the chairman and vice chairman of the ipab will act as judicial members along with the technical member to be appointed under the said act for purposes of exercising the transitional power and authority conferred on the appellate tribunal under the said ..... insofar as the rule making authority of the central government is concerned, the same emanates from section 96 (1), sub-section (2) of section 96 begins with the following : in particulars, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of ..... this view was buttressed by the language of section 13(4)(g) of that act which stated that the state government may make rules for the time within which, the manner in which and the authorities to whom any change in the ownership of any business or in the name, place or nature of any business carried on by ..... turn was dependent on the construction of the words in the prescribed manner in section 8(4) which was held to confer powers on the rule making authority to prescribe rules stating what particulars are to be mentioned in the prescribed format, the nature and value of the goods sold, the parties to whom they are sold and to which authority the format is to be furnished. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... 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 ..... the anvil of the specifications of the suit patent as has been granted by the indian patent office, section 48 of the patents act 1970 generally conferring on the patentee (the plaintiffs) "the exclusive right to prevent third parties" from the act of "making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing" such product or process as ..... functional and polyadenylation sequence, wherein expression of said nucleic acid sequence in said plant yields a fusion protein comprising an amino-terminal plastid transit peptide covalently linked to said -endotoxin protein, and wherein said fusion protein functions to localize said -endotoxin protein to a subcellular organelle or compartment; (b) obtaining a second plant; and (c) crossing said first and second plants to obtain a crossed transgenic progeny plant, said progeny plant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... 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 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 ). ..... 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 ). ..... attorney-general : (1951) 2 all er473 lord radcliffe had observed as under:-" the word deemed is used a great deal in modern legislation. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... 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 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 ). ..... 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 ). ..... attorney-general : (1951) 2 all er473 lord radcliffe had observed as under:-" the word deemed is used a great deal in modern legislation. .....
Tag this Judgment!