Disposed

M/s Ctr Manufacturing India Ltd, v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2016WP/2103/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition via a direction to the Controller of Patents and Design to first take up a pending Miscellaneous Petition before hearing the main post-grant opposition matter, as agreed by the parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Controller of Patents and Design to first take up the Miscellaneous Petition and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding with the main matter.

M/s Ctr Manufacturing India Ltd, Vs the Union of India… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2103 OF 2014

¶4

CTR Manufacturing Ind Ltd., Pune .… Petitioner V/s. The Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents

¶5

Mr. Himanshu Kane a/w. Mr. Amit Jajoo and Ms. Poorva Pant, i/by M/s. PKA Advocates, for the Petitioner.

¶6

Ms. S.V. Bharucha for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶7

Mr. Jehangir Jejeebhoy, i/by M/s. Bharucha & Partners, for Respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶9

DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.J.

¶10

DATE : 4 TH MAY, 2016.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

By this Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records relating to issuance of a Notice dated 18^th March 2014 posting hearing of the 'post grant opposition proceedings' on 22^nd April 2014.

¶13

The only contention raised before us by Mr. Kane, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that the Controller should have noted that the Petitioner-Company has filed a Miscellaneous Petition and unless and until any orders are passed on the said Miscellaneous Petition, the main matter should not have been taken up. The impugned notice does not indicate as to what will be fate of the Miscellaneous Petition.

¶14

1/2

¶15

WP-2103-14.doc

¶16

After having heard both sides and finding that there is an agreement to decide the Miscellaneous Petition first and thereafter take up the main matter, we dispose of the present Petition with a direction to the Controller of Patents & Design-Respondent No.2 to the effect that, even if he has posted the main matter or posts it in future for hearing, let him first take up the Miscellaneous Petition and pass appropriate order thereon and thereafter proceed with the main matter. Both sides are agreed that if this order is maintained, they would have no objection to the Controller of Patents & Design-Respondent No.2 passing final orders on the main matter pending before it.

¶17

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition need not be kept pending and the same is disposed of with above directions.

¶18

Needless to clarify, that since the proceedings are pending for a long time, the Controller of Patents & Design-Respondent No.2 shall endeavour and dispose it of expeditiously.

¶19

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶20

2/2

¶21

WP-2103-14.doc

M/s Ctr Manufacturing India Ltd, v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Ctr Manufacturing India Ltd, v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ingram Micro Indian Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Wockhardt Limited and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Unity Smc Joint Venture Vs Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal

Shri. Babasaheb Shripatrao Mane Vs Rupee Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Krishnamrutam Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Alak Jyot Chs. Vs Chief Executive Officer