Disposed

Ritesh Infra Arch Structural Pvt. Ltd., Amravati Thr. Director, Naresh J. Verma v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC23 Mar 2022WP/1589/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a tender notice for bridge construction work, claiming infringement of its patent rights. The Court held that as the tender was not finalized, no interference was necessary, advising the petitioner to approach the court under the Patents Act 1970 for specific enforcement once the tender is awarded.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without interference, noting the petitioner has remedies under the Patents Act 1970.

Ritesh Infra Arch Structural Pvt. Ltd., Amravati Thr… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2022)

Order

2303wp1589-22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 1589 OF 2022.

¶6

Ritesh Infra Arch Structural Private Limited. …. Petitioner.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶9

…. Respondents.

¶10

Mr.R.M. Pande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.K.S. Joshi, Incharge G.P. for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 23 MARCH 2022.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

The Petitioner has sought to question the tender notice dated 18 February 2022, which is called for by the Respondent State in respect of civil construction work of Conversion of existing Bridge to Storage Weir at Mohgaon Devi, Tahsil Mohadi, District Bhandara. The Petitioner has sought to restrain the Respondent – Authorities

Order

2303wp1589-22

not to proceed with the tender on the ground that the Petitioner holds patent in Additional Piers and Needles to Convert Existing Bridge in Bridge-cum-Barrage, bearing Patent No.371922 issued on 31 December 2017.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as a patentee under Section 48 of the Patents Act 1970, the patentee will have the exclusive right to prevent third parties, who do not have his consent from the act of making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes that product and processes in India.

¶21

The Patent Act itself provides for a methodology for enforcement of patent right which is elaborated in Chapter XVIII of the Act by approaching the court stipulated thereunder. As on today, the tender has not been finalized and granted, and if the Respondent Authorities proceed to allot the work and the successful tenderer proceeds to carry out the work under which the Petitioner holds patent, it is obvious that it will be at the risk of action being initiated by the patentee under the Act of 1970. The tender itself contains this stipulation. However, since that stage has not yet arisen, we do not deem it necessary to interfere in writ jurisdiction, as the Petitioner would have necessary remedies under the Act.

¶22

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

(ANIL L. PANSARE, J) (NITIN JAMDAR, J)

¶24

Signed By:RAKESH GANESHLAL DHURIYA Rgd Private Secretary High Court of Bombay, at Nagpur Signing Date:25.03.2022 15:06

Ritesh Infra Arch Structural Pvt. Ltd., Amravati Thr. Director, Naresh J. Verma v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Infra Arch Structural Pvt. Ltd., Amravati Thr. Director, Naresh J. Verma v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Soil and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

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

Sopan S/O Maroti Kendre Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary of Dept. of Soil and Water Conservation, Mumbai and Others

Shreyash S/O Sandip Katole Vs the S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member Secretary and Dy. Director, Amravati

Smt. Sandhya Wd/O Chandrabhushan Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary State Excise Dept. Mumbai and Others

Shailendra S/O Kailashchandra Sahu and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra,Thr. Commissioner of State Excise, Mumbai and Others

Rajni Surajsingh Pawar Vs the Governor of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Mumbai

Akhilesh S/O Dalbahadur Singh Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others