Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Section 60 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Rafiq & Anr vs Munshilal & Anr on 16 April, 1981
In Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another,
(1981) 2 SCC 788, the Court observed that a party should not suffer
for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his Agent.
The relevant portion of the said judgment is set out below:
The Patents Act, 1970
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The European Union Represented By The ... vs Union Of India & Ors. on 31 May, 2022
26. Relevant would it be to note that In European Union
Represented by the European Commission (Supra), patent
applications were restored by the Court on account of the
negligence of the Agent which coincidentally happens to be
the same agent as in this Court and as rightly pointed by the
Petitioners in the said case albeit in the case of the patent
applications, the writ petition was allowed extending periods
of 40 months and 38 months respectively, in respect of two
patent applications.
Smt. Lachi Tewari And Ors. vs Director Of Land Records And Ors. on 3 October, 1983
Insofar as any mistake
committed by counsels/advocates are concerned, the settled legal
position is that the litigants ought not to suffer, as has been laid
down by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions including Smt.
Lachi Tewari & Ors. v. Director of Land Records 1984 Supp.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chandra Sekar vs The Controller Of Patents And Designs on 3 May, 2016
"15. This position has been further reaffirmed in Bry-Air Prokon
Sagl & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 2022/DHC/4439 and in W.P.
Nos.12620&12621 of 2021 titled Chandra Sekar v. The Controller
of Patents and Designs & Anr.. In the case of Bry-Air Prokon Sagl
& Ors. (supra) the Court observed that the Petitioners should not
suffer for the fault or negligence committed on behalf of the Patent
W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2024 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:26.09.2024
17:25:59
Agent when they have duly followed up with the Patent Agent and
there is correspondence to that effect. The relevant portion of the
said judgement is extracted below:
Pnb Vesper Life Science Pvt. Ltd vs The Controller General Of Patents on 14 March, 2022
13. In any event and particularly for the aforesaid reasons, in cases of
the present nature, the benefit of doubt ought to be extended to the
suffering party like the petitioner. For this, this Court finds support in
PNB Vesper Life Sciences v. Controller General of Patents [W.P. No.
22253 of 2021 decided on 14.03.2022] wherein recently a learned Single
Judge of this Court under similar facts and circumstances held as under:-