Patents Act, 1970 - Ss. 8 & 64 - Revocation of patents - Information and undertaking regarding foreign applications - Cipla infringing Roche's patent in lung cancer drug - the life of the patent in favour of Roche in India would expire in March, 2016 - do not grant the injunction as prayed for by Roche against Cipla - there was no interim injunction in favour of Roche and due to said reason Cipla continued to manufacture and sell Erlocip - Cipla would be liable to render accounts concerning manufacture and sale of Erlocip, for which purpose suit filed by Roche against Cipla is restored with direction that it be listed before the learned Joint Registrar who would record evidence pertaining to the profits made by Cipla concerning the offending product - Costs allowed in favour of Roche and against Cipla in sum of ₹5,00,000/-.

Cipla Ltd. Vs. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. {Delhi High Court, 27 Nov 2015}

Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 - Section 49 - Life Insurance Corporation of India (Agents) Regulations, 1972 - Regulations 10, 12, 16, 17 & 19 - Termination of agency for certain lapses - Termination of agency by notice - Payment of commission on discontinuance of agency - Payment of commission to agents - Corporation's Lien on agent's dues - On a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that notwithstanding the termination of the agency on any of the grounds mentioned in Regulations 13 to 16 or under Regulation 17, the terminated agent remains entitled to earn commissions on premiums earned by LIC on successive renewals of the policies procured by the terminated agent except when his agency has been terminated for fraud.

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. R.K. Mahajan {Delhi High Court, 27 Nov 2015}

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 5 - the competence of the appropriate Government to issue a notification of exemption as also notifying exemption from a retrospective date. However, the notification dated 10.12.2014 since does not meet out the twin safeguards, viz. that the gratuity or pensionary benefit already available to the employees is not less favourable than the benefit conferred by the Act of 1972 and that the retrospective exemption should not prejudicially affect interest of any person. We hold that the notification will not nullify nor take away the effect and benefit of the orders passed by the Authorities under 1972 Act. Nor will it take away the right of the employees, including the existing pensioners, of gratuity under 1972 Act.

Chief Engineer Vs. Shilpa Laghate {Madhya Pradesh High Court, 26 Nov 2015}

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 395 & 397 r/w. 120-B - Robbery / Decoity - Sections 397 and 398 IPC are not substantive Sections but prescribe a minimum sentence for the offence of robbery or decoity or attempt to commit robbery or decoity once aggravating circumstances stated in the said Sections are satisfied. Section 397 IPC applies when offence of decoity/robbery has actually been committed. Section 398 IPC, on the other hand, has no application when robbery or decoity has been completed, but applies to case of attempt to commit robbery or decoity. Therefore, Section 398 IPC has certainly no application to the case as the dacoity was committed, not merely attempted. Accordingly, the offence for which the appellants ought to have been convicted is under Section 397 IPC.

Harish Kumar Vs. State N.C.T. of Delhi {Delhi High Court, 26 Nov 2015}

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 406, 420, 504, 506(2) r/w. 114 - Criminal Breach of Trust - Every act of breach of trust may not be resulted in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but any breach of trust with a mens rea gives rise to a criminal prosecution as well.

Amin Sureshkumar Punjiram Vs. Patel Kirtikumar Keshavlal {Gujarat High Court, 24 Nov 2015}

Penal Code, 1860 - S.405 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Ss.19 (1), 13(1)(d) & 13(1)(e) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Governor - Sanction - Former Chief Minister - Denotification of lands and allotment of a site by the Bengaluru Development Authority in favour of the son of the then Chief Minister - Writ Petitions filed praying to quash the impugned sanction order dated 21.1.2011 issued by His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka, according sanction to prosecute the petitioner, vide Annexure-A, and to declare the same invalid and unenforceable in law, etc.

B.S. Yeddyurappa Vs. Principal Secretary {Karnataka High Court, 24 Nov 2015}

Natural Justice - Principle of - The order in the present case is without any reasons - Respondent was obliged to deal with the submissions of the appellant in a broad manner before passing the order debarring the appellant. If after a hearing, a non-speaking order is passed, the person affected by adverse order would be at a loss to know the reason for the adverse order. Even if the decision is right, the person against whom it was made should be told why the decision has been made. The absence of reasons leads to denial of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The same is liable to be quashed.

Hyundai Rotem Company Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation {Delhi High Court, 23 Nov 2015}

Service Law - Recruitment - Increment - Hindu Typing Test - An employee appointed in accordance with the Recruitment Rules which makes passing of the Hindi Typing Test essential, would be entitled to increment only after passing such test - If the Recruitment Rules are silent with regard to entitlement to the grant of increment on passing the Hindi Typing Test, then in such a case if the requirement of passing Hindi Typing Test is incorporated in the letter of appointment, the employee would be entitled to increment only after passing the Hindi Typing Test - Where the Recruitment Rules provide that preference would be given to the candidate who has passed Hindi Typing Test, in such a case also the employee would not be entitled to grant of increment, if the order of appointment contains such a stipulation. He would be entitled to grant of increment from the date of passing Hindi Typing Test - Where under the policy as well as letter of appointment provide for passing of Hindi Typing Test, in such a case the employee would be entitled to increment only after passing Hindi Typing Test - If an employee has been appointed under the policy either of compassionate appointment or regularization and if policy provides for requirement of passing Hindi Typing Test essential, the concerned employee would be entitled to benefit of increment only after having passed Hindi Typing Test, even in the absence of such a stipulation in the letter of appointment - The decisions rendered in the cases of State of M.P. vs. Onkarlal, 2011 (3) MPLJ 404 and State of M.P. and others vs. Ku.Ramani Bai Bhagat, 2013 (1) MPHT 96 do not lay down correct proposition of law.

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Januma Prasad Dwivedi {Madhya Pradesh High Court, 23 Nov 2015}

Partnership Act, 1932 - S.19 - Implied authority of partner as agent of the firm - Transfer immovable property belonging to the firm - Clause (g) of sub- section 2 of Section 19 does not empower the partner without any authority to transfer the immovable property belonging to the firm.

Rajiv Kumar Gupta Vs. Susham Singla {Punjab Haryana High Court, 20 Nov 2015}

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 427 - Sentence on offender already sentenced for another offence - The section stipulates that when a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment the court has discretion to order that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with previous sentence - the court has to apply its discretion while ordering that the sentence shall run concurrently and in applying the aforesaid discretion various facts have to be considered.

Doman Lal Sahu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {Madhya Pradesh High Court, 20 Nov 2015}

Criminal Law - Further Investigation - Writ Petition dismissed - Maintainability of Writ Appeal - If the relief asked for in a writ petition is against exercise of power under criminal law or the proceeding would be a criminal proceeding, or the proceeding if carried to its conclusion ultimately may result in sentence of death or imprisonment or fine or forfeiture of property, such writ petition should be treated as filed against a proceeding under criminal jurisdiction. In such a case, the Letters Patent Appeal/Writ Appeal is not maintainable.

Kasinath Nayak Vs. State of Odisha {Orissa High Court, 19 Nov 2015}

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12(3) - Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 - Rule 12(3) - Juvenile Justice Boards - Procedure to be followed for determination of age of a juvenile - Presumption and determination of age - Different courts are following different procedures is no ground to challenge the vires of the subordinate legislation - Rule 12(3) of both Model Rules and the State Rules are valid - JJBs in Delhi are required to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 12(3) of the State Rules.

R.K. Tarun Vs. Union of India {Delhi High Court, 19 Nov 2015}

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 28 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 19(1) - Divorce - Cruelty and Desertion - Appellant neglected to perform her duty as a wife, as a mother keeping high ambition of becoming a politician - The conduct of the appellant in leaving the company of her husband and their small children and living separately for so many years since 2007 for pursuing her so called political ambition clearly indicates that she had deserted the respondent without reasonable cause and without his consent and against the wish of the respondent. Family Judge is quite justified in holding that the respondent has proved desertion and cruelty against the appellant.

Usharani Pradhan Vs. Brajakishore Pradhan {Orissa High Court, 19 Nov 2015}

Railways Act, 1989 - Section 129 - Railway Accidents and Untoward Incident (Compensation) Rules, 1999 -Compensation on account of untoward incident - Rs.4,00,000/- as the maximum amount of compensation in case of death or permanent disability - It is obligatory on the part of the Central Government to update the amount of compensation taking into consideration the substantial change in the money value and the impact it has caused in the cost of living. 

Setu Niket Vs. Union of India {Delhi High Court, 19 Nov 2015}

Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Protect the interest of tribal people - PIL - the present writ petition is not a real public interest litigation - there is a statutory scheme of filing appeal against any order of diversion, mutation or even transfer, provided in the Code, which remedy can be resorted to by any aggrieved person - if the tribal persons were aggrieved by any such act of the respondents, they could have filed a statutory appeal as provided under the Code within the time prescribed. 

Ravindra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh {Madhya Pradesh High Court, 18 Nov 2015}

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 109 read with Section 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - A plea for quashing of charge before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record should not be entertained in the absence of any exceptional case.

Ashadevi Vs. State of Maharashtra {Bombay High Court, 18 Nov 2015}

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S.462 - Proceedings in wrong place - the petitioners had not taken any objection in regard to territorial jurisdiction at the time of framing of charge. The Additional Sessions Judge who had framed the charge was competent to try the case, there is no pleading that any substantial injustice has been caused or there is failure of justice. Hence, on the basis of technical objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, the order passed by the trial court by which the accused persons have been discharged cannot be said to be void or nonest.

Union of India Vs. Sudeep Patel {Madhya Pradesh High Court, 18 Nov 2015}

Supreme Law © 2015 - Blogger Templates Designed by