Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: comparative chart of corresponding sections of 1983 act Sorted by: recent Court: chennai Year: 2009

Aug 11 2009 (HC)

S. Paul Raj Vs. Tata Consultancy Services Limited Represented by Its M ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-11-2009

Reported in : LC2010(1)37

..... yashod vardhan, learned senior counsel for the respondent that the applicant's attempt is only to coerce the respondents on the basis of certain unsubstantiated correspondence sent through e-mails to extract certain privileges and amounts and that he had set up the so-called invention which is otherwise available in public ..... not worth using such ideas. when the applicant started sending mails stating that the respondent had cheated him, the respondent closed the loop on his correspondence. it was also stated that the application to secure patent was submitted only in september, 2007 just prior to the institution of the suit. ..... discretion to find the amount of substantial mischief or injury which is likely to be caused to the parties, if the injunction is refused and compare it with that which is likely to be caused to the other side if the injunction is granted. if on weighing competing possibilities or ..... of injury. in other words, irreparable injury or damage would ensue before the legal right would be established at trial; and (3) that the comparative hardship or mischief or inconvenience which is likely to occur from withholding the injunction will be greater than that would be likely to arise from granting ..... idea of the applicant is neither new nor involved any inventive step within the meaning of section 2 of the patent act, 1970. it is also not an invention in terms of section 3 of the patent act.13. it was further claimed that the idea or discovery even assuming that it was the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //