Acme Tele Power Limited vs Intelux Electronics Private Limited on 4 August, 2015

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Acme Tele Power Limited vs Intelux Electronics Private Limited on 4 August, 2015

Bench: Sudhanshu Dhulia

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
             Original Suit No. 1 of 2009
ACME Tele Power Limited                                       ... Plaintiff

                              Vs
INtelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & others                        ... Defendants
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, present for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Chinmoy A. Khaladkar, Advocate, present for the defendants.

Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. A suit was filed by the plaintiff - ACME Tele Power Ltd. before the District Judge, Almora on 12.10.2009 for permanent injunction for restraining infringement of Intellectual Property Rights and Damages against the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 - Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd., apart from other defendants who were the employees of defendant No. 1. During the pendency of the suit itself a counter-claim was made by the defendants and consequently, under provision of Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970, the matter was transferred to this Court. Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970 reads as under:-

"104. Jurisdiction- No suit for the declaration under Section 105 or for any relief under Section 106 or for infringement of a patent shall be instituted in any court inferior to a district court having jurisdiction to try the suit:

Provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant, the suit, along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision."

2. As of now issues have been framed in the case. These issues were framed by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2011. On the last occasion, however, while hearing the objections of the defendants regarding the maintainability of suit itself due to the fact that the patent of the plaintiff stood revoked on 30.12.2011 (a fact which is admitted by the plaintiff), the learned counsel for the plaintiff sought adjournment.

3. The counsel for the plaintiff later raised apprehension that in case the suit is withdrawal there may be serious complications, as the defendants may seek damages. A statement was made by the counsel for the defendants Sri Chinmoy A. Khaladkar that he already had instructions from his client i.e. defendants No. 1 and 2 that they will not be seeking damages if the plaintiff withdraws the suit. A week's time was sought by the plaintiff to seek instruction from his client and the matter adjourned to 04.08.2015.

4. A joint statement has also been made by Mr. Lalit Sharma and Mr. Chinmoy A. Khaladkar, who are representing plaintiff and defendants respectively, before this Court that they shall withdraw all the pending civil, criminal and other suits as well as counter-claim relating to the present matter, which are pending before different courts and they have instruction to withdraw the present suit/counter-claim as well.

5. In view of the above statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the original suit and counter-claim are hereby dismissed as withdrawn under Order XXIII Rule I of C.P.C. It is also made clear that all orders passed by this Court during the pendency of the case also stand vacated.

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 04.08.2015 Aswal

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court