Delhi High Court
Asian Electronics Ltd. vs Havells India Limited on 19 April, 2010
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 07.01.20110
Pronounced on: 19.04. 2010
+ I.A. No. 8205/2009 in CS(OS) 1168/2009
ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Gaurav Barathi and Mr. Shekhar Gupta, Advocates.
versus
HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED ..... Defendant
Through : Ms. Neha Kapoor, Advocate.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes.
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be Yes.
reported in the Digest?
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
*
1. This order will dispose of an application for temporary injunction, IA. No.8205/2009.
2. The plaintiff(hereinafter called "Asian"), owner of Patent No.193488 in respect of "Conversion Kit to change the fluorescent lighting units inductive operation to electronic operation" (hereafter "the subject Patent") claims a decree for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs including damages to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs against the defendant (hereinafter called "Havells").
3. Asian claims to be owner of a world class manufacturing facility at Nashik, India and engaged in design, manufacture and marketing of energy efficient products including lighting solutions. Such products are used for all possible applications including domestic, corporate, down lighting, floodlighting etc. Asian states that its products are sold all over India and many countries throughout the world. It claims to have been established in 1964 and have diversified into manufacturing and sale of lighting products in 1988. Asian states that its IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 1 Chairman Mr. Suresh Hiralal Shah is an engineer and an innovator who found that current lighting system were straight fluorescent lamps comprising a sealed glass tube with sockets on either sides for connection to the circuit and receive power. It is contended that the classical fluorescent lamp uses a starter switch mechanism to light up the tube and a ballast or choke. The starter switch comprises a bimetallic strip that assists in regulating the current passing through by turning the circuit on (of off). The ballast plays a role of releasing stored energy to electrodes (technically called as "inductive current" as the ballast contains inductive wound up wires). It is contended that Mr. Shah discovered a problem associated with fluorescent lamps is that the flicker while starting and discharge invisible gas and are therefore not energy efficient. Yet they are used in various sizes such T-8 (4 feet)/or T12 lamps. Having studied the problem and all related aspects, says Asian Mr. Shah, developed an improved conversion kit to change the 4 feet long T8 or T12 from inductive operation to electronic operation without any re-wiring. It is submitted that the improved fluorescent lighting unit incorporates the following salient features :
a) T5, a fluorescent lamp of shortened length;
b) Adaptors on either side of the fluorescent lamp;
c) A wiring assembly for electrically connecting the adapters; and
d) The structural components forming the electronic ballast are housed in the line channel or in one or both of the adapters.
4. Asian states that after the development of the lighting unit with conversion kit based on new technology Mr. Shah filed an application at the Patent Office, Mumbai being No.544/BOM/1999. The patent was granted on 27.02.2007 and was entered in the register. A copy of the patent certificate has been produced along with the list of documents. Asian submits that the patent involves two important claims which as follows:
"Claim No. 1.
Conversion kit to change fluorescent lighting units from inductive operation to electronic operation, comprising a pair of sleeve like adaptors which are adapted to be mounted at the ends of a straight fluorescent lighting tube, and a wiring assembly for electrically connecting the adaptors, the structural components forming the electronic ballast being mounted in one or both of the adapters, or being mounted in the wiring assembly.
***********
IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 2
Claim No.10
Conversion kit to change the fluorescent lighting units - from inductive operation to electronic operation as claim in claim 1 comprising alternatively as a modification. a. straight fluorescent lamp having at least two contact pins at its each end b. first and second adaptors mountable on the ends of said lamp, each said adaptor having a pair of internal contacts for mating with said lamp contact pins and also having a pair or external contact pins for mating with contacts in the lighting fixture;
c. connection lines provided in a line channel for electrically connecting the said
first adaptor to the said second adaptor; and
d. an electronic ballast."
5. It is contended that pursuant to an assignment deed all rights in respect of the subject patent were made over to the plaintiff and particulars thereof were duly entered into the patent register. Copies of assignment deed have been produced. Asian further submits that its product has been granted patent not only in India but also in 26 other countries; list of such countries has been disclosed in the suit. It is further claimed that a lighting unit in conversion system was rated the most innovative concept by the British Lighting Society in 2003 and the extract of the relevant portion of that report has been produced along with the list of documents. Asian claims that the unit and conversion kit is a unique and has satisfied the test for patentability not only in other parts of world but also in India. Asian contends having spread awareness about its novel and innovative technology as well as its new lighting unit and Conversion kit has gained popularity and has now been extensively used and has become distinctive of and is exclusively associated in the public mind with it (Asian). The brand name under which these products are marketed is ASIAN E+. The figures relating to sales turn over and advertisement expenses are inter alia as follows :
Year Sales Advertising
Turnover expenses
2004-05 10777 Lacs 37 Lacs
2005-06 15654 Lacs 52 Lacs
2006-07 36744 Lacs 260 Lacs
Asian also mentions about having obtained domain name registration with respect to the website www.aelgroup.com .
IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 3
6. Asian contends that sometime in 2008, it learnt, through market investigations, that Havells manufactures and sales identical lightening unit and conversion system which is a copy of its patent No.193488 and is sold under the brand and style Prodigy. Asian relies upon a print out from the Havells www.havells.com. Asian contends that its R&D Division examined Havell's products and its internal parts and found that Havell's product is a total and complete copy of the subject Patent.
7. Asian, in support of its allegations contends that Havells copied its patent has indicated in a chart the features incorporated in the patented article which are found in the Havells product; the same is as follows :
S.No. Claim 1 Product of
Defendant
1. Conversion kit Yes.
2. Adaptors on either Yes.
side of fluorescent
lamp
3. Wiring assembly Yes.
4. Ballast Present,
mounted in
wiring
assembly
8. Asian claims to have sent a legal notice dated 4th March, 2009 to Havells, asking it to cease and desist from infringement of the subject patent, which was replied to on 14th March, 2009. Besides reiterating the contentions made in their application and the suit, Mr. Gaurav Barti, for Asian argued that the novel and unique features of the Asian products are the two adaptors based on 2 sides which assist in the process of conversion to electronic current from induction and thus minimize flickering which is normally associated with fluorescent lights. It is argued that the patent application having been made in 1999 and having been processed through an exhaustive procedure whereby an opportunity was afforded to all interested to oppose, after the investigation of which it was granted. Havells cannot contend that Asian's products are not unique or novel. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported as K. Ramu Vs. Adyar Ananda Bhavan & Muthulakshmi Bhavan, 2007 (34) PTC 689 for the submission that grant of patent is sufficient for the Court to infer novelty, uniqueness and IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 4 presence of inventive steps and that having regard to the principles enunciated in American Cyanamid Co. Vs. Ethicon Ltd., (1975) 1 All E.R. 504, the Court should injunct Havell's from infringing Asian's patents.
9. It is argued that Havell's submissions about obviousness of the product based on an earlier US Patent alleging the latter to be a "Prior Art" is untenable. In support of this submission, learned counsel argued that lack of novelty implies that the invention is discernible to the public prior to the relevant time and in support of this puts reliance on Beloit Canada Ltd. Vs. Valment Oy (1986) 8 C.P.R. (3d) 289. It was contended that the Court should be able to look at a prior single publication to discover in it all information which for practical purposes is necessary to produce the claimed invention without the exercise of any inventive skill. Asian argued that material sought here and relied, do not measure up to the standard and at this prima facie stage the Court cannot due to lack of technical expertise hold against the patent and conclude that it was either anticipated or obvious based on alleged prior art.
10. Reliance was lastly placed upon a decision of this Court reported as Strix Ltd. Vs. Maharaja Applicances Ltd., 2009 (7) AD Delhi 609, in support of the argument that the Havells cannot, by process of reverse engineering, be allowed to infringe the patent claiming that it lacks in inventiveness, novelty or uniqueness. The comparison between the two products has been made in the suit, in Para 25, visually.
11. Havells, in its written statement, contends that Asian is not entitled to the Patent, as it is based on prior art. It is submitted that the patent in question is based on US Patent 4246629. It is stated that a simple comparison of Claims 1 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the said Patent and that of the plaintiff are given below:
Embodiment US Patent Asian's Patent
1. Flourescent Tube Present Present
2. A pair of sleeve like adaptors on each side of lamp Present Present
3. Wiring Assembly Present Present
4. Conversion kit Present Present
IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 5
5. Ballast mounted in the wiring assembly Present Present
(Claimed to be
their unique
feature)
12. According to Havells, Asian's patent is a mere workshop result or minor trade variant of the US Patent, lacking the essential inventive step as to warrant patent grant, under the Act. It is contended that Asian's patent is a mere re-arrangement of known devices, each functioning independently of one another in a known way by virtue of being in the public domain. It is alleged that the patent is liable to be revoked on the grounds mentioned in Section 64 (1) (d) of the Act. It is also submitted that Havell's product is dissimilar to Asian's; a comparison of the two, with distinctive and independent features (of Havell's) is reproduced in Para 5 of the written statement.
13. It is contended that the plaintiff's claim for novelty and inventive step is not genuine, and that the inventive step claimed, for the purpose of the patent, in fact is no inventive step, but an obvious innovation that could have been discerned by a person reasonably acquainted with the prior art. The reference is here the fact that the features which Asian's inventions claims are such that the various elements, such as the electronic ballast, the T-8/T-12 lights, or the equipment on which they are mounted, are neither new, nor concededly are claimed to be unique and novel. It is submitted that even the sleeve like side adapters, on either side of the lamp are not either unique nor novel; in these circumstances, their mere positioning, when the overall efficiencies of the whole assembly are claimed to have been improved, cannot constitute an inventive step, entitled to the monopoly of a patent grant. It is also urged that Asian has not been able to show that it had any sales in the Indian market, and that its claims for substantial sales are unfounded, as there is no document. Havells also submits that Asian's argument that it is an ISO 9001 company is of no consequence, as one of the established principles on which a patentee's application for injunction can be considered is whether the patent is being worked, at all. Havells argues that all indications in the suit are that Asian does not work its patent, and that therefore, the balance of convenience if at all, is against the grant of ad-interim injunction.
14. In this case, Asian complains of patent infringement; its claim is premised on the efficiency derived through placement of existing component or constituents. Asian's Claim No. 1 and Claim No. 10, on which the patent is based, are said to have been infringed. The IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 6 various components of the invention include a T-8/T-12 tube, two sleeve like adaptor, and electronic ballast contained within one or both of the adaptors. An electronic lamp ballast has been explained as follows:
"An electronic lamp ballast uses solid state electronic circuitry to provide the proper starting and operating electrical condition to power one or more fluorescent lamps and more recently HID lamps. Electronic ballasts usually change the frequency of the power from the standard mains (e.g., 60 Hz in U.S.) frequency to 20,000 Hz or higher, substantially eliminating the stroboscopic effect of flicker (a product of the line frequency) associated with fluorescent lighting (see photosensitive epilepsy). In addition, because more gas remains ionized in the arc stream, the lamps actually operate at about 9% higher efficacy above approximately 10 kHz. Lamp efficacy increases sharply at about 10 kHz and continues to improve until approximately 20 kHz. Because of the higher efficiency of the ballast itself and the improvement of lamp efficacy by operating at a higher frequency electronic ballasts offer higher system efficacy. In addition, the higher operating frequency means that it is often practical to use a capacitor as the current-limiting reactance rather than the inductor required at line frequencies. Capacitors tend to be much lower in loss than inductors, allowing them to more closely approach an "ideal reactance".
Electronic ballasts are often based on the SMPS topology, first rectifying the input power and then chopping it at a high frequency. Advanced electronic ballasts may allow dimming via pulse-width modulation and remote control and monitoring via networks such as LonWorks, DALI, DMX-512, DSI or simple analog control using a 0-10V DC brightness control signal.
Fluorescent lamp ballasts Instant start An instant start ballast starts lamps without heating the cathodes at all by using a high voltage (around 600 V). It is the most energy efficient type, but gives the least number of starts from a lamp as emissive oxides are blasted from the cold cathode surfaces each time the lamp is started. This is the best type for installations where lamps are not turned on and off very often."
(Extract from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_ballast accessed on April 17, 2010, at 18:54 hours)
15. A fluorescent lamp is described as follows (Ref.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lamp, accessed on 18th April, 2010, at 15:49 hours):
"A fluorescent lamp or fluorescent tube is a gas-discharge lamp that uses electricity to excite mercury vapor. The excited mercury atoms produce short-wave ultraviolet light that then causes a phosphor to fluoresce, producing visible light. A fluorescent lamp converts electrical power into useful light more efficiently than an incandescent lamp. Lower energy cost typically offsets the higher initial cost of the lamp. The lamp IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 7 is more costly because it requires a ballast to regulate the flow of current through the lamp."
The efficiencies, in terms of power or energy consumption, are greater, in the case of a fluorescent (or tube light, as it is commonly called) than a conventional electric lamp (or bulb). The role in starting here, is crucially played by the electronic ballast, which has been described above. Asian is not claiming that any of the components are inventions, or involve a new or inventive step; the patent is claimed for the kit, which incorporates the two sleeve like ends, one or both of which contain the ballast. In other words the claim is in respect of the design or particular assembly.
16. Some of the relevant provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, are extracted below. Section 2 of the Patent Act is the definition clause; it inter alia, defines, inventions, inventive step, new invention, and patent, as follows:
"2. (j) "invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application;
(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;
(l) "new invention" means any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date of filing of patent application with complete specification, i.e., the subject matter has not fallen in public domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art;
(m) "patent" means a patent for any invention granted under this Act;"
Section 3 defines what are not inventions; it reads as follows:
"3. WHAT ARE NOT INVENTIONS The following are not inventions within the meaning of this Act,-
(a) an invention which is frivolous or which claims anything obviously contrary to well established natural laws;
(b) an invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be contrary public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment;
(c) the mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory or discovery of any living thing or non-living substances occurring in nature;
(d) the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 8 pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to. efficacy;
(e) a substance obtained by a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of the properties of the components thereof or a process for producing such substance;
(f) the mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way;
(h) a method of agriculture or horticulture;
(i) any process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic diagnostic therapeutic or other treatment of human beings or any process for a similar treatment of animals to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that of their products.
(j) plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro-organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals;
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms;
(l) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions;
(m) a mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing game;
(n) a presentation of information;
(o) topography of integrated circuits;
(p) an invention which in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known component or components."
17. An "invention" to be patentable, therefore, should:
a) involve an inventive step capable of industrial application;
b) which should involve technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge, or having economic significance or both; and
c) be not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Section 3 outlines situations where an invention (properly so called) can yet be not patentable. Section 3 (d), and its explanation, (as amended with effect from 1-1-2005), now prescribe a class of invention which cannot be subject matter of patent; it reads as follows:
"(d) the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, etabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differsignificantly in properties with regard to. efficacy;"
IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 9
18. In the decision reported as British Celanese Ltd -vs- Courtaultds Ltd 1935 (52) RPC 171, it was held, of patents involving combinations, that:
" It is accepted as sound law that a mere placing side by side of old integers so that each performs its own proper function independently of any of the others is not a patentable combination, but that where the old integers when placed together have some working interrelation producing a new or improved result then there is patentable subject matter in the idea of the working inter relation brought about by the collocation of the integers."
Recently, in Sabaf SpA -vs- MFI Furniture Centres, 2005 RPC 10, the House of Lords had occasion to spell out what was termed as the "law of collocations" where a claimed step might involve the combination (collocation) of two inventions:
"I quite agree that there is no law of collocation in the sense of a qualification of, or gloss upon, or exception to, the test for obviousness stated in section 3 of the Act. But before you can apply section 3 and ask whether the invention involves an inventive step, you first have to decide what the invention is. In particular, you have to decide whether you are dealing with one invention or two or more inventions. Two inventions do not become one invention because they are included in the same hardware. A compact motor car may contain many inventions, each operating independently of each other but all designed to contribute to the overall goal of having a compact car. That does not make the car a single invention.
25. Section 14(5)(d) of the Act provides (following article 82 of the EPC) that a claim shall "relate to one invention or to a group of inventions which are so linked as to form a single inventive concept". Although this is a procedural requirement with which an application must comply, it does suggest that the references in the Act to an "invention" (as in section 3) are to the expression of a single inventive concept and not to a collocation of separate inventions.
26. The EPO guidelines say that "the invention claimed must normally be considered as a whole". But equally, one must not try to consider as a whole what are in fact two separate inventions. What the Guidelines do is to state the principle upon which you decide whether you are dealing with a single invention or not. If the two integers interact upon each other, if there is synergy between them, they constitute a single invention having a combined effect and one applies section 3 to the idea of combining them. If each integer "performs its own proper function independently of any of the others", then each is for the purposes of section 3 a separate invention and it has to be applied to each one separately. That, in my opinion, is what Laddie J meant by the law of collocation."
19. Here, Asian is not saying what is the improved efficiency achieved by the existing fluorescent lamp; it does not claim novelty or inventive step in the constituent parts; rather it is upon the whole of the kit or product. Having regard to the law discussed above, and the circumstance that no new product, or any significantly different use of the existing product is IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 10 disclosed, the court prima facie feels that the patent cannot sustain, as being an obvious one, and also hit by the exclusions in Section 3 (d) ("mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product") and also Section 3 (f) (arrangement or duplication of known devices..).
20. Havells objects to the subject patent, contending that it was anticipated - rather copied an expired US Patent, which had also indicated a similar combination of different elements for a fluorescent lamp. The claim summary of the US Patent, which is part of the record, is reproduced below:
21. In Beloit Technologies Inc v Valmet Paper Machinery Inc [1995] RPC 705, 739 it was held that the prior art description may be sufficient in itself to enable the ordinary skilled man, armed with common general knowledge of the art, to perform the subject-matter of the invention. Indeed, when the prior art is a product, the product itself, though dumb, may be enabling if it is "available to the public" and a person skilled in the art can discover its composition or internal structure and reproduce it without undue burden. An important decision on anticipation, General Tire and Rubber Co v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co Ltd [1972] RPC 457, says, in respect of the subject that:
"To determine whether a patentee's claim has been anticipated by an earlier publication it is necessary to compare the earlier publication with the patentee's claim...If the earlier publication...discloses the same device as the device which the patentee by his claim...asserts that he has invented, the patentee's claim has been anticipated, but not otherwise. ...When the prior inventor's publication and the IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 11 patentee's claim have respectively been construed by the court in the light of all properly admissible evidence as to technical matters, the meaning of words and expressions used in the art and so forth, the question whether the patentee's claim is new...falls to be decided as a question of fact. If the prior inventor's publication contains a clear description of, or clear instructions to do or make, something that would infringe the patentee's claim if carried out after the grant of the patentee's patent, the patentee's claim will have been shown to lack the necessary novelty...The prior inventor, however, and the patentee may have approached the same device from different starting points and may for this reason, or it may be for other reasons, have so described their devices that it cannot be immediately discerned from a reading of the language which they have respectively used that they have discovered in truth the same device; but if carrying out the directions contained in the prior inventor's publication will inevitably result in something being made or done which, if the patentee's claim were valid, would constitute an infringement of the patentee's claim, this circumstance demonstrates that the patentee's claim has in fact been anticipated.
If, on the other hand, the prior publication contains a direction which is capable of being carried out in a manner which would infringe the patentee's claim, but would be at least as likely to be carried out in a way which would not do so, the patentee's claim will not have been anticipated, although it may fail on the ground of obviousness. To anticipate the patentee's claim the prior publication must contain clear and unmistakeable directions to do what the patentee claims to have invented...A signpost, however clear, upon the road to the patentee's invention will not suffice. The prior inventor must be clearly shown to have planted his flag at the precise destination before the patentee."
The correct test of anticipation (of a patent, from known elements, or publications) was re- stated in University of Southampton's Applications [2005] RPC 220 thus:
"But once the very subject-matter of the invention has been disclosed by the prior art and the question is whether it was enabled, the person skilled in the art is assumed to be willing to make trial and error experiments to get it to work. If, therefore, one asks whether some degree of experimentation is to be assumed, it is very important to know whether one is talking about disclosure or about enablement."
All the above principles were reiterated in Synthon BV v. Smithkline Beecham plc [2005] UKHL 59.
22. In this case, the US patent clearly mentions about two ends and an electronic ballast. The function of the end product is the same, ie. a fluorescent lamp. In the absence of the plaintiff's explanation why the new product has any significant improvement in function or efficiency, or any objective material, it has to be concluded that the patent is hit, prima facie, by anticipation.
23. The above observations would have disposed of the application. However, the court feels compelled to discuss another aspect, which would also be relevant vis a vis the balance of convenience. The plaintiff asserts that its products are widely known, and are sold in India.
IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 12 It has relied on some sales figures in the suit. Yet, apart from one solitary invoice, it has been unable to produce any objective materials, disclosing sale of its products, any sales tax/ VAT registrations or returns, or indeed any other material to substantiate its allegations about use of the patent, in India. Franz Xaver Humer v. New Yash Engineers, ILR (1996) 2 Del 791, a Division Bench ruling of this court, suggests that if the product is imported, or not sold widely in India (not "worked" in India) the court should be cautious in granting injunction. Having regard to the lack of prima facie merit, the approach indicated in Humer commends itself to this court. It is therefore held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the balance of convenience is in favour of grant of an interim injunction.
24. In view of the above prima facie conclusions, the applications for temporary injunctions have to fail; they are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. CS (OS) 1168/2009 List for further proceedings, enabling parties to complete pleadings in the suit and counter claim, and also for admission and denial of documents before the Joint Registrar, on 7th May, 2010. List before the Court on 4th August, 2010 for framing issues.
DATED: (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) 19th April, 2010 JUDGE IA No. 8205/2009 in CS (OS) No. 1168/2009 Page 13