Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kavitha Kuruganti – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal regarding registration and revocation of plant variety (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10) |
| 2. arguments against the revocation by appellant (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 22) |
| 3. respondent's arguments supporting revocation (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 4. analysis of legal frameworks and precedents (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. application and significance of section 34 (Para 42 , 43) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal (Para 97) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 56 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers. Rights Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") challenging the order dated 3rd December, 2021 (in short, `Impugned Order') passed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority"), revoking the appellant's registration with respect to plant variety-FL 2027 potato variety, on the grounds provided under Section 34(a), (b), (c) and (h) of the Act. The appellant further challenges the Authority's letter dated 11.02.2022, rejecting the appellant's application for renewal of its registration.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The appellan
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
