Issue of Maintainablity to be decided first

AIR 1958 SC 687 In Re: K. Kamraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and others; (2002) 10 SCC 101; In Re: Arun Agarwal Vs. Nagarika Export (P) Ltd. and another; (2004) 13 SCC 575 In Re: Ceylon Biscuits Ltd. Vs. Bakemens Industries (P) Ltd. and others; (2006) 11 SCC 696 In Re: Union of India and Others Vs. Ranbir Singh Rathaur and others.

 

Administrative Order cannot ordinarily impose penalty

Karnataka Rare Earth & Anr v. Senior Geologist (2004) 2 SCC 783

Option of Appeal is not a bar to Section 482 proceedings

Warehousing Corpn. v. Shree Durga Ji Traders, (2011) 14 SCC 615 at page 620

12. We are convinced that in the instant case, rejection of the appellant's petition under Section 482 of the Code has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Availability of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal is not an absolute bar in entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the Code. As aforesaid, one of the circumstances envisaged in the said section, for exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is to secure the ends of justice. Undoubtedly, the trial court had dismissed the complaint on a technical ground and therefore, interests of justice required the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to set aside such an order so that the trial court could proceed with the trial on merits.

 

No anticipatory bail to proclaimed offender

State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171

Article 226 can be resorted in apt cases when Section 438 is not available (UP)

Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 363 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 40 at page 472

36. Thus, such a power has to be exercised very cautiously keeping in view, at the same time, that the provisions of Article 226 are a device to advance justice and not to frustrate it. The powers are, therefore, to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. In entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438 CrPC proceedings, keeping in mind that when this provision is specifically omitted in the State of Uttar Pradesh, it cannot be resorted to as back door entry via Article 226. On the other hand, wherever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is again clarified that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified

 

Infringement of Patent: Action lies anywhere where infringement takes place

Hindustan Lever v. Lalit Wadhwa, ILR (2008) 1 Del 408.

 

(C) Patents Act — Territorial Jurisdiction — Patents have effect throughout India — Suit can be filed wherever the patentee wants to prevent third parties from offering from sale/selling products which infringe the patent any where in India.

Under Section 24 of the Patents Act, every patent shall have effect throughout India. Under Section 48 of the Patents Act, the patentee of a product has the exclusive right to prevent other parties, who do not have its consent, from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing for those purposes, the product in India which is the subject matter of patent. Consequently, the patentee is entitled to prevent other parties from offering for sale or selling the products which infringe the patent in any part of India wherever they may be sold. Admittedly, the Defendants are selling their products in Delhi. The infringement of the Plaintiffs rights under Section 48 of the Patents Act has therefore, taken place in Delhi, assuming that the plaintiff has a valid patent and that the defendants product infringes the same.

 

A.P.D. Jain Pathshala v. Shivaji Bhagwat More, (2011) 13 SCC 99 at page 110

29. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the courts shall, subject to the provisions of the Code, have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. The express or implied bar necessarily refers to a bar created by the Code itself or by any statute made by a legislature. Therefore, the High Court in exercise of the power of judicial review, cannot issue a direction that the civil courts shall not entertain any suit or application in regard to a particular type of disputes (in this case, disputes relating to Shikshan Sevaks) nor create exclusive jurisdiction in a quasi-judicial forum like the Grievance Committee will be entitled to deal with them. The High Court, cannot, by a judicial order, nullify, supersede or render ineffectual the express provisions of an enactment.