Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (2.40 seconds)
Documents citing Ganga Ram Hospital Trust vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 1 June, 2001

Genentech Inc And Others vs Drugs Controller General Of India And ... on 25 April, 2016

66. The said Rule does not protect or enforce the right of the innovator drugs. Even Mr.Sanjay Jain, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the defendants No.1 and 2, has admitted that the procedure CS (OS) No.3284/2015 Page 73 of 187 of granting approvals to manufacturers for biosimilar drugs does not involve a lis between the manufacturer of the innovator drug and the manufacturer of the biosimilar drug. Defendant No.1 does not determine the rights of such parties at the time of granting approvals to drug manufacturers. Therefore, the plaintiffs (i.e. the manufactures of the innovator drug in the present case) are entitled to file a civil suit to protect their rights in relation to the plaintiffs' Trastuzumab as efficacious remedy under this Rule is not available. (See Ganga Ram Hospital v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2001 (60) DRJ 549 at paragraph 20).
Delhi High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd & Others vs Drugs Controller General Of India & ... on 11 September, 2023

This issue also came up before this Court in Ganga Ram Hospital Trust v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 622, and the Court held that except where a civil suit is specifically barred under a particular Statute, there can be no bar to a civil suit. A suit for its maintainability requires no authority of law and it is enough that no Statute bars the suit, as the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is all embracing. The Court also examined implied bar as distinguished from an express bar, which may arise in a situation where a Statute for instance creates a special right and lays down a special remedy for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 540/2016 and CS(COMM) 1119/2016 Page 39 of 86 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:12.09.2023 20:29:25 exercising the right. Delving on this issue, the Court held that an implied bar need not be readily inferred as exclusion of jurisdiction of a Civil Court is a serious matter and cannot be encouraged. Legal rights ought to be normally given effect to rather than curtailed by inviting implied bars to jurisdiction and the reason is simple. Wherever Legislature intends to bar institution of civil suits, it does not hesitate in saying so in the Statute itself. The Court also observed that the mere fact that a Statute provides for certain remedies is not sufficient to exclude jurisdiction of Civil Courts as the right to approach the Civil Court is an inherent right which normally cannot be taken away or presumed to be taken away and is too strong a right to be denied by indirect means and thus only a specific bar could take it away. In that context, the Court referred to Sections 169 and 170 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and held that Section 169 provides for a remedy of appeal against levy or assessment of any tax, while Section 170 lays down conditions to exercise the right, but neither of the two provisions contain a bar against a civil suit to challenge the levy/assessment of tax under the Act and at best it could be argued that in view of the remedy of appeal, party should have recourse to the same. Wherever Legislature intends to create a specific bar to a civil suit it so provides in the Statute as in the case of matters relating to unauthorized constructions, where Section 347E provides a complete bar to the power of Civil Court to entertain suits/applications etc. in respect of a notice, appealable under Section 343 or Section 347B. Relevant passages from the judgment are as follows:-
Delhi High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 0 - J Singh - Full Document

Roche Products (India) Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Drugs Controller General Of India And ... on 25 April, 2016

77. The said Rule does not protect or enforce the right of the innovator drugs. Even Mr.Sanjay Jain, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the defendant No.1, has admitted that the procedure of granting approvals to manufacturers for biosimilar drugs does not involve a lis between the manufacturer of the innovator drug and the manufacturer of the biosimilar drug. Defendant No.1 does not determine the rights of such parties at the time of granting approvals to drug manufacturers. Therefore, the plaintiffs (i.e. the manufactures of the innovator drug in the present case) are entitled to file a civil suit to protect their rights in relation to the plaintiffs' Trastuzumab as efficacious remedy under this Rule is not available. (See Ganga Ram Hospital v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2001 (60) DRJ 549 at paragraph 20).
Delhi High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 1 - M Singh - Full Document

Cbse vs Edmc on 10 May, 2024

Written submissions have been filed on behalf of plaintiff. In the written submissions apart from reiterating the contents of plaint/replication and testimonies of witnesses, it is stated by the plaintiff that they had already given up the first relief which was with respect to the grant of exemption under section 115 (iv) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. It is clarified by plaintiff that just for the purpose of summing now four issues have to be adjudicated/decided, three framed on 25.08.2015 and one on 07.05.2016. Thereafter, discussion were laid out in the written submissions by the plaintiff qua each of issues separately. It is stated with respect to the House Tax Tribunals that in these tribunals appeals are filed under section 169 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and this section has to be read alongwith section 170 of the aforeasid Act. It is further stated that in RFA number 163/1997, decided on 01.06.2001, it was held that neither of these two sections contain any provision which has the capacity to bar a civil suit to challenge levy and assessment tax under the Act. A civil suit can be filed if the authorities have exercised excess jurisdiction and civil court cannot refuse to entertain the suit unless barred by law. Reliance is also placed upon Ganga Ram Hospital Trust vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. With respect to the limitation issue vis-a- vis section 478 (2) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, it is stated that section 478 (2) be read inconsonance with section 478 (1).
Delhi District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Having Its Regd. Office At 4609 vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 2 February, 2019

28. The next ground of dismissing the suit was that present suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court as the jurisdiction lies with ATMCD. Ld. Trial Court was of the view that since plaintiff has already availed remedy under Section 169 of DMC Act before ATMCD, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and was barred under Section 169 of the DMC Act r/w Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. The judgment which has been cited before this Court i.e. Ganga Ram Hospital Trust v. MCD 92(2001) DLT 775 DB was also cited before the Trial Court but the rulings therein did not find favour with the Trial Court although Trial Court did not discuss as to how the said ruling is not applicable to the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Shri Shyam Kishore on 12 February, 2007

14. This decision of Apex Court is applicable to the facts of the present case because the provisions of section 169/170 of D.M.C. Act are almost similar to Section 84 and 86 of NDMC Act, and these provisions provide alternate remedy to the house tax payer. Besides, this decision of Apex Court came subsequent to the decision of High Court of Delhi in case of Ganga Ram Hospital Trust Vs. MCD, supra, so this decision of Apex Court has overriding effect and this court has to abide by said decision. If present case is examined on this perspective, then order of Ld. Civil Judge is not sustainable in law on issues Nos. 1 and 2 for the reasons that Ld. Civil Judge did examine the relevant law on the point and did not give convincing reasons for deciding these issues in favour of the plaintiffs and against MCD.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Manju Gutpa vs M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd on 12 October, 2021

23. The appellant further relied upon the judgment of "Ganga Ram Hospital Trust Vs. MCD", 92 (2001) DLT 775 (DB) and read paragraph 21 of the same which stipulates that, "an important question which needs to be considered in this connection is whether the statutory remedy is adequate and equally efficacious or it is too onerous. Even when a statutory remedy is adequate it may turn out to be highly onerous and it may be impossible for an aggrieved party to avail of the same.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudesh vs Amitabh Bhola And Ors. on 27 November, 2002

16. There can be no doubt that the remedy of the writ petition is not barred though the judgment in Ganga Ram Hospital's case (supra) referred to the remedy of a civil suit. It will, however, have to be examined in each case whether the condition of pre-deposit is so onerous in the circumstances of each case as to make the remedy illussionary. It is not necessary to deal with this aspect in detail since I have considered the controversy in question on merits dealing with the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 7 August, 2002

In the written statement a specific objection was taken by the defendant that the suit is barred under the provisions of Section 478(2) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. A similar objection was also raised and was the contention in Ganga Ram Hospital Trust v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; reported in 2001 v AD (Delhi) 644. In the said decision, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that a suit of this nature is maintainable.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M Sharma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next