REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

M.C. Jayasingh Appellant

V/S

MISHRA DHATU NIGAM LIMITED Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

AMP INCORPORATED VS. UTILUX PROPRIETARY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER CO. VS. FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. [REFERRED TO]
LORD DIPLOCK IN CATNIC COMPONENTS LTD AND ANOTHER VS. HILL AND SMITH LTD. [REFERRED TO]
GLAVERBEL SA VS. BRITISH COAL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
WINDSURFING INTERNATIONAL INC. VS. TABUR MARINE,GREAT BRITAIN LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
INTERLEGO A.G. VS. TYCO INDUSTRIES INC. [REFERRED TO]
ANIL RISHI VS. GURBAKSH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MONSANTO VS. MERCK AND CO. INC. [REFERRED TO]
TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED VS. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BHARATH GLASS TUBES VS. GOPAL GLASS WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
LAXMI RAJ SHETTY VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [REFERRED TO]
F.HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LIMITED VS. CIPLA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
CHIMANLAL JAGJIVANDAS SHETH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
KANAKARATHANAMMAL VS. V S LOGANATHA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA:NARAYAN GOVIND GAVATE [REFERRED TO]
SETH LOONKARAN SETHIYA VS. IVAN E JOHN [REFERRED TO]
SUDHA DEVI VS. M P NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
SUKHWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAJ PARKASH VS. MANGAT RAM CHOWDHRY [REFERRED TO]
ALERT INDIA VS. NAVEEN PLASTICS [REFERRED TO]
PILOT PEN CO INDIA PRIVATE VS. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHANMUGHAM VS. SARASWATHI [REFERRED TO]
MARIAPPAN VS. A R SAFIULLAH [REFERRED TO]
MT SAIDUNNISA VS. MTRUQYA [REFERRED TO]
MARNEEDI SATYAM VS. MASIMUKKULA VENKATASWAMI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SUBBIAH PILLAI ALIAS S.S.M. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI VS. SANKARAPANDIAM PILLAI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suit for infringement of patents and designs and for rendition of accounts and various other reliefs.

(2.) I have heard Mr.M.Sundar, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.V. Chandrakanthan, learned counsel for the first defendant, Mr.C.Manishankar, learned counsel for defendants 2 and 3 and Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned counsel for the fourth defendant.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to look into the written statement, I must bring on record two facts. One is that in paragraph 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has presented in a tabular form, the various kinds of Prosthesis, in respect of which, he had obtained the registration of Patents and/or Designs. The tabular from contains a list of 15 Prosthesis. Out of those 15 Prosthesis, the plaintiff has obtained registration of both Patent as well as Design only in respect of 5 Prosthesis. In respect of 10 Prosthesis, he has not obtained registration of Patent. But, he has obtained registration of Design in respect of all the 15 Prosthesis.

Click here to view full judgment.

M.C. JAYASINGH Vs. MISHRA DHATU NIGAM LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address