LAXMI DUTT ROOP CHAND Vs. NANKAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit was originally filed in the Court of the District Judge Sultanpur under Section 29 (I) of the Indian Patents and Designs Act (hereinafter called the Act). Since the defendants raised a counter claim for revocation of the patent, the suit along with the counter claim was transferred to this Court for decision.

(2.) The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm dealing in utensils having its office at Durga Devi in Mirzapur City. Luxmi Dutt and Roop Chand are the two partners of the firm at present. One Mahabir Prasad Vishwakarma of Mirzapur obtained a patent No. 42514 of 1950 under the Act in respect of the process of manufacture of hollow wares, such as 'lotas', 'batwas', 'degchis', 'batlois' etc., under a registration certificate dated the 7th August 1958 issued by the Patent Office, Calcutta. Mahabir Prasad Vishwakarma was thus said to have an exclusive right to manufacture hollow wares of the former description by the patented process and he was said to have been using the above patented process for the manufacture of the aforementioned hollow wares.

(3.) The plaintiff firm alleged that the utility of the process having been ascertained, they at first obtained a licence from the original patentee Mahabir Prasad Visliwa-karma on the terms and conditions given in the agreement dated 2-4-1953 and started manufacturing 'lotas', 'batwas', 'degchis' etc. after the said licence. On 10-5-1958 the plaintiff firm purchased the abovementioned patent from the original patentee Mahabir Prasad Vishwakarma on payment of a consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. They thus became the sole proprietor of the patent since the date of the purchase and have been using it. An entry of assignment in favour of the plaintiff firm is said to have been made in the registers of the Patent Office and thus the plaintiff became the proprietor of the patent with the exclusive right of use. The said patent is said to be valid and subsisting and is said to be running 12th year of its life. The plaintiff further alleged that various publications relating to the patented process and the articles made therefrom were issued through circulars, market reports, newspapers etc. in order to give it a publicity.