SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28

MADRAS HIGH COURT
, CJ
M/s. Aditi Manufacturing Company – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel – Respondent


Table of Content
1. court must assess its jurisdiction based on the location of actions. (Para 1 , 6)
2. filing locations affect jurisdiction concerning patent applications. (Para 2 , 4 , 12)
3. convenience arrangements do not shift foundational jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 14)
4. forum conveniens may prevent jurisdictional exercise based on convenience. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)

1. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice M/s. Aditi Manufacturing Company, the fourth respondent in the main writ petitions, seeks to assail the territorial jurisdiction of this Court invoked by the original writ petitioner Mr. Bharat Bhogilal Patel in filing the writ petitions assailing the order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). It is in view thereof that arguments were addressed by both the sides confined to this issue, i.e. the preliminary aspect to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the fate of which would in turn, be material before the Court examines the merits of the impugned order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as per their rankings in MP No. 3 of 2012.

2. The first respondent, being the original writ petitioner, filed Patent Applications on 21.9.1998 in respect of 'A















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top