RAM NARAIN KHER Vs. AMBASSADOR INUSTRIES NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff claiming to be the registered proprietor and grantee of Indian Patent No. 113388 dated 29th November, 1967 pertaining to air cooler by this application under Order 39. Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, Civil Procedure Code seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and representatives from adopting the method and process for manufacturing, selling or offering, far sale air coolers in infringement of the plaintiff's aforesaid patent with further relief for rendition at accounts.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that he has legal right to the aforementioned patent for the period ending 29th November, 1983. and to refrain others from exploiting the said patent rights without permisson from him. According to the plaintiff the air cooler of the subject patent has distinct .advantages over the air cooler presently known in the art and that the coolers of the subject patent have acquired status and reputation. The grievance of the plaintiff is that in January, 1974, he came to hnow that the defendants have infringed and further intend to infrinffe the aforesaid patent by wrongfully adopting the plaintiffs process and method without his permission and are selling their coolers in Delhi. The plaintiff accordingly avers that he is incurring heavy loss due to the adoption of his patent and due to manufacturing, selling or offering for sale air coolers by the defendants.

(3.) The defendants in their reply resisted the application, inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff's patent, if any, was not valid and had been known in India and abroad much prior to the date of the alleged patent, i.e.. 29th November, 1967; that the claims made by the plaintiff in the patent were vague and did not describe the invention clearly and properly; that the patent was likely to be revoked on the ground that the air cooler of the plaintiff has no advantage and had been obtained by playing fraud on the patent office; that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of the Indian Patents and Designs Act. 1911; that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious and did not involve any inventive step; and that the complete specification did not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed.