Respondent counsel sought a stay of the judgment. The Bench refused the stay, reasoning that no prejudice would arise if the Patent were restored, and the Petitioner would be barred from filing claims/suits for three months thereafter.
Stay application refused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/1
WP1258/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1258 OF 2011 TEIJIN LIMITED ….. Petitioner. V/s
Union of India & Ors
….. Respondents.
Mr. Ramesh Gajaria i/b Gajaria & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. A.M. Sethna with Mr. G. Hariharan i/b Mr. A.A. Ansari for the Respondents.
CORAM: V. M. KANADE & M.S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE: 10th February, 2014
P.C.:-
At this stage, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents seeks stay of the judgment pronounced today in this matter. We are afraid that since we have decided the Petition by giving reasons why we feel that the Petition should be allowed, it will not be possible to grant stay of our own order. Secondly, no prejudice would be caused to the comptroller if the Patent is restored. In any case, we have said that the Petitioner will not be in a position to file any claim or suit for a period of three months after the Petition is disposed of. Hence, application for stay is refused.
(M.S. SONAK, J. ) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
Teijin Limited
Union of India
V. M. Kanade
M.S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
