Bench:Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
10 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, other, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
10 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land for an industrial park. The plaintiff had entered into reciprocal land exchange arrangements with defendant No.1 Debasish Pal but sought injunction after the defendant delayed transferring 151.46 decimals of land. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance already executed.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal arose from the rejection of a temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court had erred in rejecting the injunction, and granted relief restraining the respondents from altering the suit property, obstructing common passage access, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, which had rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Division Bench held that the trial court erred in finding no prima facie case, as the oral agreement was evident from the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance executed between them. The court set aside the trial court's order and granted injunctive relief restraining the defendants from altering the suit property, obstructing the common passage, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the rejection of its temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent for mutual conveyance of land to set up an industrial park, and sought to restrain the respondent from altering the suit property and obstructing ingress and egress. The Division Bench set aside the trial court's order and granted the injunction, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property, making constructions, alienating the property, or obstructing the common passage.
SRMB Srijan Private Limited v.Grihashakti Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that since full patent rights only commence upon grant, counting the twenty-year term from the date of application is contradictory. The respondents argued that both sections operate at different stages and are compliant with international obligations like TRIPS Agreement. The Court ultimately held that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution.
Nababuddin Ahmed v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Kolkata And Anr
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Nababuddin Ahmed, setting aside the unauthorized removal of his registered trademark. The court held that merely uploading a notice on an official website does not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the petitioner was not given individual notice and opportunity to rectify defects, the administrative action taken by the Registrar was deemed vitiated.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union of India & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha filed a review application challenging the order of a Single Judge regarding the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court dismissed the review application, holding that the petitioner had not adequately argued or pleaded the issue of constitutional validity in the original writ petition.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner, the patentee/assignee of Patent No. 254875, challenged an order by the Secretary, Government of India, regarding their request for a patent linkage to the VAHAN e-Module. The core dispute was whether the patent holder could mandate that electric vehicle registration (specifically e-Rickshaws) be subject to NOC issuance based on the patent before official registration.
Prashant Properties Limited v.Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.