|
Dismisses suit against MD's patent registration in own name; Plaintiff's 'bonafides' vital |
Dismisses derivation action suit instituted by minority shareholder in Gharda Chemicals, wherein plaintiff had pleaded that patents registered by Managing Director of the Co. (Mr. Keki Gharda) in his own name, ought to have instead been applied for and registered in the name of Co.; On plaintiff's apprehension that the MD may transfer the said patents in favour of a third party, HC observes ... " whatever serious apprehension the plaintiff may have, cannot be a ground to grant relief in favour of the plaintiff considering the serious consequences of the same.."; HC notes Sr. Advocate P. Chidambaram's argument that the plaintiff had entered into MoU with Godrej group, a competitor of Gharda chemicals and accepts his contention that any interim relief to plaintiff would "jeopardize" the patents and make them "vulnerable" to attack by outsiders; Noting family hostility between the petitioner (nephew of Mr. Keki Gharda ) and Defendant, HC holds "In the cases of derivative action, bonafides of the suitor plays a vital and significant role. The derivative action is an exception to the rule that only company can sue on its own behalf"; Further observes that subject patents were registered since 2008, and appellant had not placed anything on record to indicate that respondent is selling, transferring or in any way creating third party interest in respect of patents registered in his name; Also points out that appellant had an alternate efficacious remedy before specialized forum, i.e. Controller of Patents under Patents Act, or appellant could have initiated proceeding for pre-grant of patents u/s 25(1)(a), or resorted to revocation petition/application, instead of the instant derivative suit; Upholds Single judge's reasoned order but reduces costs imposed on plaintiff by half, to Rs. 5 lacs:Bombay HC |
The ruling was delivered by division bench of Justice Naresh H. Patil and Justice A.S. Gadkari. Senior Advocate Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar alongwith Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar, Shriraj Dhru, Meenal Desai argued on behalf of the appellant. Respondents were represented by Senior Advocate P.Chidambaram alongwith Advocates Mustafa Safiyuddin, Suhas Tulzapurkar, Sumeet Rane, Nishad Nadkarni and Vaibhav Ken |
Upholds Tribunal's jurisdiction to order revival of complaint filed under MRTP Act |
COMPAT upholds its jurisdiction to order revival of complaint filed under MRTP Act, and to order a notice of enquiry, rejecting respondent's contention that since complaint was not pending before MRTP Commission, it could not be transferred to COMPAT u/s 66 of Competition Act; Interprets Section 66 and states that Tribunal could order revival of complaint, as the complaint before MRTP Commission was dismissed in light of pending arbitral proceedings, reserving complainant's right to seek for complaint revival; Also holds that application for revival was made in 2006 (before substitution of Section 66 of Competition Act in 2007), however, due to certain reasons the application was not disposed of till the repeal of MRTP Act, thus holds that "inability of the Commission to dispose of the application for revival cannot operate to the detriment of the complainant"; Observing that respondent had neither sought review of Tribunal's order for revival of complaint nor did it challenge it before High Court by way of writ or before Supreme Court under Article 136, casts a doubt on credibility of respondent's objection to Tribunal's jurisdiction when the revival proceedings were heard:COMPAT |
The Order was passed by Justice G.S. Singhvi, Chairman, COMPAT. Senior Advocate PallavShishodia, Advocates David Rao and Abid Ali Beeran P appeared on behalf of Complainant while respondents were represented by Senior Advocate HuzefaAhmadi, Advocates Surekha Raman, DeleepPoolakkot, AnujSarma, Rohan Sharma and ShahrukhAlam. |
[LSI-430-COMPAT-2015-(NDEL)] Click here to read facts, analysis and the copy of judgement. |
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment