Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing Bhagirath Prasad Sigh @ Bachcha Babu vs Ram Narayan Rai @ Ram Narayan on 24 June, 2010

Emrald Co Operative Housing Society Ltd vs Decd. Gulamkadar S/O Gulam Husain ... on 18 June, 2019

34. Yet another decision relied upon by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner is reported in AIR 2010 Patna 189 in the case of Bhagirath Prasad Singh Vs. Ram Narayan Rai and Anr. which is essentially dealing with a situation about a litigation based upon suppression of material fact and clever omission and after relying upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, what has been laid down by the Patna High Court is that, if a real cause of action has not been set out in the plaint and some illusion is sought to be created on the basis of suppression of material fact, the same cannot be permitted. The relevant observations contained in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 deserve to be quoted hereinafter:
Gujarat High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - A J Shastri - Full Document

Novartis Ag & Anr. vs Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr. on 12 December, 2022

17. Referring, next, to the two patent applications IN 2655MUM2015 and IN 201621044625, stated to have been filed by Cadila for obtaining product and process patents in respect of the Valsartan-Sacubitril combination, Mr. Lall submits that the Commercial Courts Act read with the Delhi High Court Patent Rules 1 (2014) 212 DLT 321 2 2009 FC 1209 3 (1998) 86 CDR (3d) 36 CS(COMM) 681/2021 Page 6 of 46 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Date:12.12.2022 16:54:10 Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005462 required Novartis, mandatorily, to file the aforesaid applications, which were available in the public domain. Novartis has demurred from doing so, according to him, only so that they would be saved the exercise of mapping the suit patent with the allegedly infringing patents which, if done, would reveal that there was no infringement. He has relied, in this context, on Rule 3(A)(ix) and (x)4 as well as Rule 2(e)5 of the Delhi High Court Patent Rules, which, according to him, mandated mapping, in every case, of the suit patent with the alleging infringing patent and did not relax this requirement in the case of quia timet actions. He has also invited attention, in this context, to paras 9 to 12 of the judgment of the High Court of Patna in Bhagirath Prasad Singh v. Ram Narayan Rai6:
Delhi High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Mr.Rajiv K. Mehta vs Mrs.Rekha H.Sheth on 24 March, 2014

Mr.Seksaria, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Patna High Court in case of Bhagirath Prasad Singh vs. Ram Narayan Rai & Anr. AIR 2010 Patna 189 and in particular paragraph 10 in support of his submission that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked if the suit is an abuse of process of court, bogus and irresponsible. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 3 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Mr.Rajiv K. Mehta vs Mrs.Rekha H.Sheth on 24 March, 2014

Mr.Seksaria, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Patna High Court in case of Bhagirath Prasad Singh vs. Ram Narayan Rai & Anr. AIR 2010 Patna 189 and in particular paragraph 10 in support of his submission that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be invoked if the suit is an abuse of process of court, bogus and irresponsible. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document
1   2 3 Next