Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)
Bharat Bhogilal Patel vs M/S. Tvs Electronics Limited on 7 May, 2026 cites

Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) ... on 9 July, 2020

Nothing has been pointed out as to how the Plaint when read as it is does not disclose a cause of action. The entire basis of seeking rejection of the Plaint in the facts of the present case is to, infact look beyond the Plaint and not at the Plaint itself. This clearly and plainly falls outside the limited ambit of Order VII Rule 11. Hence, the Defendant's reliance upon the decisions in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali do not apply to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 390 - I Malhotra - Full Document

T. Arivandandam vs T. V. Satyapal & Another on 14 October, 1977

Nothing has been pointed out as to how the Plaint when read as it is does not disclose a cause of action. The entire basis of seeking rejection of the Plaint in the facts of the present case is to, infact look beyond the Plaint and not at the Plaint itself. This clearly and plainly falls outside the limited ambit of Order VII Rule 11. Hence, the Defendant's reliance upon the decisions in the case of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal & Anr and Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali do not apply to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 1095 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 29 September, 2000

Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:29:40 ::: 6-NMCD-1604-2019 B.​ While it is undoubtedly correct that the second order records "the invention was known, that there is neither any novelty nor any inventive step", the second order is entirely bereft of any independent reasoning to support such finding. Also, and crucially, the IPAB has, in both the subsequent orders of revocation specifically granted the Plaintiff, the liberty to challenge the said orders, depending upon the outcome of the Writ Petitions by which the Plaintiff had impugned the First Order. Therefore, in my view, for the reasons set out in paragraph (A), it is clear that the second and third orders were premised entirely upon the First Order. Hence, I find that the Plaintiff's reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu to be entirely apposite, and the said discussion would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. C.​ I also find much merit in the Plaintiff's contention that the subsequent orders of revocation were never given effect to. This is apparent from the fact that the said Patents have been renewed and shown as being 'in force' in the e-Register since the year 2013. Furthermore, if the 27 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:29:40 ::: 6-NMCD-1604-2019 subsequent orders, or either of them, had been enforced, the IPAB would have, as per the provisions of Section 117D(2) of the Patents Act, communicated the subsequent orders of revocation to the Controller of the Patents. Clearly this has not been done since, as already noted above, the renewal fees have been accepted, and the said Patents show as being in force. The record also bears out that the validity of the said patents has been extended without any qualification as under the provisions of Section 67(1)(c) of the Patents Act. This would not have been so had the subsequent orders been given effect to.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 270 - M J Rao - Full Document

Syrma Technology Private Limited vs Powerwave Technologies Sweden Ab (In ... on 25 March, 2021

G.​ Also for the reasons set out in (D), (E) and (F) above, I find much merit in the Plaintiffs' reliance upon the decision in the case of 30 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:29:40 ::: 6-NMCD-1604-2019 Ambalal Sarabhi Enterprises Limited v. K.S. Interface LLP and Anr.11 and Syrma Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Powerwave Technologies Sweden12, and the submission that the Defendants' conduct has been to defeat the very provisions of Order XIII-A. The provision of Order XIII-A was introduced for the expeditious disposal of Suits so as to streamline the judicial process and to ensure the smooth flow of the same with respect to commercial disputes. The Defendants have clearly misused the provisions of Order XIII-A to defeat the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as already noted. H.​ Also, it cannot be lost sight of that this Court vide order dated 3rd September, 2015, had set aside the first order and remanded the matter back to the IPAB for consideration afresh. Thus, the IPAB was to determine the issue of revocation of the said patents. This inquiry is, admittedly, pending determination, and therefore for this Court to, at this stage in a summary manner, allow the captioned Notices of 11 (2020) 15 SCC 585.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors vs Bombay Enviornmental Action Group.& ... on 31 January, 2011

In 8 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2026 01:29:40 ::: 6-NMCD-1604-2019 support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anita International v. Tungabhadra Sugar Works Mazdoor Sangh1, and Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia v. Bombay Environmental Action Group2 .
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 129 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next