Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.68 seconds)Section 105 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 104 in The Patents Act, 1970 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
13. It is settled law that cause of action is a
"bundle of facts", which gives the Plaintiff a right to
8
relief against the Defendant. However, the said facts
in order to constitute part of the cause of action are
required to form an integral part of the basis of the
claim of the Plaintiff. The notice dated 3.4.2014
issued by the Plaintiff is not a statutory requirement
under the Patents Act. Hence, mere issuance of
notice by the Plaintiff from its address will not
constitute a cause of action. This aspect of the matter
has been considered in detailed by the Trial Court
which has also noticed the settled proposition of law
and also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others 1 as
well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd., and
others v. Haribox Swalram and others 2, wherein
1
(1994) 4 SCC 711
2
(2004) 9 SCC 786
9
the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 10 has held
as under:
The Patents Act, 1970
National Textile Corpn. Ltd. & Ors vs M/S Haribox Swalram & Ors on 5 April, 2004
13. It is settled law that cause of action is a
"bundle of facts", which gives the Plaintiff a right to
8
relief against the Defendant. However, the said facts
in order to constitute part of the cause of action are
required to form an integral part of the basis of the
claim of the Plaintiff. The notice dated 3.4.2014
issued by the Plaintiff is not a statutory requirement
under the Patents Act. Hence, mere issuance of
notice by the Plaintiff from its address will not
constitute a cause of action. This aspect of the matter
has been considered in detailed by the Trial Court
which has also noticed the settled proposition of law
and also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas
Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and others 1 as
well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd., and
others v. Haribox Swalram and others 2, wherein
1
(1994) 4 SCC 711
2
(2004) 9 SCC 786
9
the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 10 has held
as under:
Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001
In Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd.
AIR 2002 SC 126 in the context of clause (2) of
Article 226 of the Constitution, it has been
explained that each and every fact pleaded in the
writ petition does not ipso facto lead to the
conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of
action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction
unless those facts pleaded are such which have a
nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in
the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis
or dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to
a cause of action so as to confer territorial
jurisdiction on the Court concerned. ............"
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1