Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court

Kanishk Sinha vs Dr Saumitra Mohan & Ors on 20 June, 2023

Author: Arindam Mukherjee

Bench: Arindam Mukherjee

OCD-3
                              ORDER SHEET


                            CS 114 of 2023
                           IA No.GA 1 of 2023
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                ORIDNARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE
                        (COMMERCIAL DIVISION)


                            KANISHK SINHA
                                 VS.
                      DR SAUMITRA MOHAN & ORS.


BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

Date: 20th June, 2023.

Mr. Kanishk Sinha, proposed plaintiff appears in person. The Court : The proposed plaintiff is appearing in person. Although he claims to be holding a valid law degree and is enrolled with the Bar Council of West Bengal but has been given a considerable period of hearing at the time of presentation and admission of the plaint. Despite the prolonged hearing the proposed plaintiff has not been able to satisfy this Court as to the necessity for dispensation of formalities under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, leave under Order II Rule 2 and leave under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The proposed plaintiff though alleges infringement of his patent as the pivot for his cause of action, if any, to institute the suit but in the reliefs claimed he has quantified the damages and sought for a decree for Rs.1000,00,00,000/-. There is already pending suits before this Court and before the District 2 Court at Alipore concerning infringement of patent. Even if it is assumed without being admitted that the cause of action in the previous suits are different from that, if any, in the present suit then also upon quantifying the damages the contemplation of urgent interim relief for the purpose of dispensation of the formalities under Section 12A has been greatly diluted. Ordinarily I would have refused the leave under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and directed return of the plaint but the proposed plaintiff being in person, I direct the matter to go out of the list for the time being to afford one further opportunity to the proposed plaintiff to satisfy the Court regarding dispensation of formalities under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as also leave under Order II Rule 2 and leave under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The plaintiff will be at liberty to mention the matter.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) pa