Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: patents Court: chennai Year: 2017 Page 1 of about 47 results (0.032 seconds)

Jan 09 2017 (HC)

M/s. Maya Appliances Private Limited, Besant Avenue, Adyar, Chennai an ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-09-2017

..... which are the subject matter of the suit, thus becomes a achilles heel. the functionality of the aspect of framelessness is also admitted, as seen through the application for patent, advertisements made on in the pleadings of the plaint. there are certain admissions made on the similarities on the products, which underwent prior publication and subsequently registered by the ..... into it. the applicants are the prior user/registered proprietor under the designs act, 2000. their application for innovation qua the inventional aspects, is pending before the controller of patent. the respondent has also filed an application under section 19 of the designs act, 2000. there are other persons, who got the registration, of which, one is for ..... relief. appropriate steps would be taken to cancel the said registrations. they stand on a different footing than that of the respondent. the applications filed for registration under the patent act, would not take away the rights under the designs act. there is no material contradiction in the stand taken by the applicants in the pleadings. accordingly, the ..... that the respondent is also a reputed concern having wide turnover than the applicants. advertisement of the applicants also includes the statement that the products have been registered under the patent act, though factually incorrect. both the counsels addressed the court sprinkling with numerous citations. 14. submission of the applicants:- the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants/ .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2017 (HC)

Dr. G. Srinivasan Vs. Voltamp Transformers Limited, Chetpet and Others

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-14-2017

..... defendant at sivaganga. therefore, without establishing the infringement, the plaintiff, merely on the basis of some photocopy of the diagram, cannot claim that there is an infringement of patent. as already stated above, he has not even sought any expert opinion to compare the two transformers to prove the alleged infringement. without expert's opinion comparing the plaintiff ..... would not enable an average skilled person in the field to construct such transformer. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff has obtained patent, without disclosing any inventive steps, in order to prevent the others from carrying on their legitimate business in the same field. therefore, the learned counsel for the defendants ..... that he is an expert in erecting, installing, low tension and high tension transformers substations. the plaintiff has also failed to get technical analysis report comparing the plaintiff's patent specifications with the transformers manufactured and installed by 1st defendant on the orders placed by 3rd defendant. further, the alleged circuit diagram displayed at the site of 3rd defendant ..... for power production and distribution. he also had discussions with the tamil nadu electricity board for possible implementation of the said project. according to the plaintiff, in the said patent for "midget transformers" he has mentioned a particular type of transformer, which is coded as 363 digitally and dyyn 11 in vector group, and the same consists of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 03 2017 (HC)

P. Murugan Vs. The Registrar, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ot ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-03-2017

..... in the sense that they can reasonably bear more than one meaning, that is to say, if the words are semantically ambiguous, or if a provision, if read literally, is patently incompatible with the other provisions of that instrument, the court would be justified in construing the words in a manner which will make the particular provision purposeful. that, in essence ..... decisions of supreme court, each consisting of equal number of judges, later decision prevails. a full bench of karnataka high court (five judge bench) in govindanaik g. kalaghatigi v. west patent press company limited and anr. (air 1980 karnataka 92), at paragraph 5, held that- "if two decisions of the supreme court on a question of law can not be reconciled .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2017 (HC)

The Pondicherry University, Represented by its Registrar, Dr. B.R. Amb ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-31-2017

..... .06.2014, passed in w.p.no.18369 of 2013, on the file of this court. w.a.no.264 of 2015 is filed under clause 15 of the letters patent against the order, dated 26.06.2014, passed in w.p.no.18370 of 2013, on the file of this court.) judgment: nooty ramamohana rao, j. 1. these writ appeals .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2017 (HC)

A. Somasundaram Vs. The Secretary to Government Home Department, Gover ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-20-2017

..... prescribed under service rules or general instructions issued by the employer and it is not the case of the employee that there has been any arithmetical mistake or typographical error patent on the face of the record, the high court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution should not interfere with the decision of the employer ..... the order dated 29.09.2016 rendered in w.p.no.31358 of 2014.) s.m. subramaniam, j. 1. this writ appeal, under clause 15 of the letters patent, has been preferred questioning the order pronounced by the learned single judge, on 29.09.2016, in w.p.no.31358 of 2014. 2. factum of the case: (a) the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 09 2017 (HC)

M/s. RIO Glass Solar SA, rep. by its Power of Attorney Agent Jose Mari ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-09-2017

..... power co. ltd. vs. general electric co. [reported in 1994 supp. (1) scc 644], it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal and if it is contrary to the fundamental policy of indian law or the interest of india or justice or morality or in addition, if it is ..... patently illegal. illegality must go to the root of the matter." 18. the hon'ble supreme court in the same decision, while answering the question as to what would constitute fundamental ..... required to be given a wider meaning. accordingly, for the purposes of section 34, this court added a new category - patent illegality - for setting aside the award. while adding this category for setting aside the award on the ground of patent illegality, the court clarified that illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2017 (HC)

M/s. ALM Enterprises No.134/63, Royapuram, Chennai, by its authorized ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-31-2017

..... is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. availability of other adequate remedies was not an absolute bar for grant of a writ when patent illegality was committed. since the said proposition of law was laid down by the supreme court in the state of uttar pradesh v. mohammed nooh (air 1958 sc 86), a ..... common judgment: nooty ramamohana rao, j. 1. both these writ appeals are preferred under clause 15 of the letters patent, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 02.06.2016 rendered by the learned single judge dismissing the two writ petitions instituted by the appellant herein in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 20 2017 (HC)

R. Muthukrishnan Vs. The Registrar (Administration) High Court of Judi ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-20-2017

..... the order dated 07.01.2015 rendered in w.p.no.66 of 2015.) nooty ramamohana rao, j. 1. this writ appeal is instituted under clause 15 of the letters patent, calling in question the correctness of the order and judgment rendered by our learned brother t.s.sivagnanam,j., dismissing the writ petition instituted by the appellant herein, calling in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 2017 (HC)

The Project Director, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, Highways Departm ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-08-2017

..... required to be given a wider meaning. accordingly, for the purposes of section 34, this court added a new category - patent illegality - for setting aside the award. while adding this category for setting aside the award on the ground of patent illegality, the court clarified that illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 31 2017 (HC)

M/S Satya Metal Industries, Punjab Vs. Union of India Rep by Directora ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Jan-31-2017

..... is not acting as an appellate authority over the decision taken by the arbitrator, on merits. the court would be in a position to interfere in case there is a patent error or perversity in the award and the same is manifest. the law :- 19. the supreme court in associate builders vs. delhi development authority, 2015(3) scc 49, considered section ..... policy of india that is to say, if it is contrary to (a) fundamental policy of indian laws; (b) interest of india; (c) injustice or morality or if it is patently illegal. it could also be challenged as provided under sections 13(5) and 16(6) of the arbitration and conciliation act. the supreme court said :- it must clearly be understood .....

Tag this Judgment!


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