Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2010 Page 1 of about 72 results (0.029 seconds)

Sep 08 2010 (HC)

Aloys Wobben Argestrasse.Vs. Enercon (India) Limited, and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-08-2010

..... to have been decided by the tribunal at the first instance. that the tribunal has mixed the concept of locus standi and concept of person interested as defined under the patents act and therefore, the order of the tribunal calls for interference. that the finding of the tribunal is that the proceedings before the company law board will not affect the ..... is by stating that in terms of the articles of association of the first respondent company mr.yogesh mehra lacks the competence to file the petition for revocation of the patents and reliance was placed on articles 128(1), 157, 158(1), 170(14) and 171(4) of the articles of association of the company. it was further contended that even ..... "as the tribunal") the second respondent herein, in various miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner in the original revocation applications pending before the tribunal. 2. the matter arises under the patents act. the facts which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition could be briefly set out as hereunder:-the first respondent herein (hereinafter referred to "as the company ..... ") had filed 18 original revocation applications before the tribunal for revocation of the patent granted in favour of the writ petitioner under section 64 of the patents act. in the said original revocation application, the writ petitioner filed the miscellaneous petitions for dismissal of the original petitions. the case of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 04 2010 (HC)

Bajaj Auto Ltd. Bombay Pune Road, Vs. Tvs Motor Company Ltd.,

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Oct-04-2010

..... asking the plaintiff to lead primary evidence. (g)the plaintiff has made a categorical assertion in the plaint that they would prove the groundless threat and non-infringement of patent by adducing evidence. therefore, they should have been called upon to produce evidence in support of their contentions. (h)the order passed by the learned single judge directing ..... reputed business house engaged in the manufacture of automobile products.(b)the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiff does not come under the purview of section 106 of the patents act. to grant a declaratory relief as to non-infringement, the plaintiff ought to have complied with the procedures contemplated under the act viz., plaintiff should have applied ..... /or all those in active concert and participation with them from continuing the issuance of threats that the plaintiff is infringing the defendant's patent no.195904 and/or that the defendant is contemplating infringement action against the plaintiff or threats of like nature and import, directly or indirectly in any manner including by ..... action against plaintiff are unjustified; (b)declaring that the plaintiff's product tvs flame which uses two spark plug with screw-fitted sleeve and three valves does not infringe patent no.195904 of the defendant;(c)granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves or through their agents, servants, licensees, employees and distributors and anyone claiming through them and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2010 (HC)

M/S.Tablets India Limited. Vs. the Joint Secretary Ministry of Finance ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-26-2010

..... on the footing that non compliance of the procedure prescribed under notification nos.42/94 dated 21.9.1994 would ipso facto deprive the appellant of the rebate claimed was patently erroneous which would run contrary to the discretionary power vested with the authority under proviso to rule 12(1)(b). the learned counsel further contended that for the very same .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 2010 (HC)

United Labour Federation. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-22-2010

..... of the case there is a dispute which requires a trial or adjudication by a tribunal or a court. government cannot take the function of adjudication. if the claim is patently frivolous or if the admitted facts are so glaringly against workmen not warranting trial or adjudication by tribunal or court, then the government would be justified in refusing to make .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2010 (HC)

J.Venkatesan. Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-26-2010

..... case facts are writ large. 4th respondent was far senior to the appellant. when the junior was promoted as junior assistant and placed above the 4th respondent, the same was patently not in order. when the facts were writ large, issuance of notice to the appellant and further hearing may not have been necessitated. there is no force in the contention .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2010 (HC)

M/S. Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd., Vs. Mr. V. Sekar, and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jul-16-2010

..... has been taken over by the respondent.6. the point for consideration is whether the suit is for a land or enforcement of an agreement.7. clause 12of the letters patent act reads thus:"12. original jurisdiction as to suits.and we do further ordain that the said high court of judicature at bombay, in the exercise of its ordinary original ..... to have been obtained by playing fraud on the tribunal, we hold that the suit is not covered by the expression "suit for land" under clause 12 of the letters patent (madras) and the suit cannot be dismissed on that ground.10. in 2001 (4) ctc 39(adcon electronics pvt. ltd., v. daulate and anr.), the supreme court held thus:"18 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2010 (HC)

J.P. Builders Rep. by Its Proprietor J. Paramanandam, Vs. A. Ramadas R ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-29-2010

..... the case, balancing the rights of parties, we have issued directions to drt. in our considered view, an error apparent on the face of the record must be such a patent error, which in one glance, can be detected without advancing long drawn argument on either side. where there are two possible views regarding interpretation or application of law vis-a ..... consider the contentions raised. the points falling for our consideration are - whether our common judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and whether there is patent/manifest error warranting review of our common judgment.14. it was contended that except the suit property, other properties were not subject matter in o.s. no. 336 of 2006 ..... review, parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue. an error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only if such error is patent and can be located without any elaborate argument and without any scope for controversy with regard to such error, which stares at the face even by a mere glance of ..... could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.(emphasis ours).9. under order 47 rule 1 cpc a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 31 2010 (HC)

infant Jesus Teacher Training Institute,vs. M.Manikandan, and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-31-2010

..... review, parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue. an error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only if such error is patent and can be located without any elaborate argument and without any scope for controversy with regard to such error, which stares at the face even by a mere glance of ..... from any error apparent on the face of the record and whether there is patent/manifest error warranting review of the earlier judgment in w.a.no.1145 of 2009.16. the main contention of the review petitioner is that by allowing of appeal by ..... could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 15. in the light of the above, the point for falling for consideration is, whether the judgment dated 23.11.2009 in w.a.no.1145 of 2009 suffers .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2010 (HC)

M/S.Sonali Rep. by Its Partner Mr.Amit K.Saiya, Vs. C.Balaji.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-19-2010

..... the learned appellate authority in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and as such, both the orders of the concerned authorities suffer from serious irregularity and patent illegality and as such, this court is left with no other option but to interfere with the said orders and accordingly, set aside both the orders of the authorities in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 25 2010 (HC)

J.N.Agnihotri .. Vs. M/S.Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., and anr.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jun-25-2010

..... principal labour court, chennai in c.p.no.297 of 2000 dated 23.2.2004 in computing the monetary benefits due to the writ petitioner suffers from material irregularity and patent illegality, the error being an error of law, this court interferes with the order so passed by the principal labour court and set aside the same and resultantly, allows the .....

Tag this Judgment!


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