Back
SUPREME COURT
A.M. Sapre, R. Banumathi, JJ
J. Mitra & Co. (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Span Diagnostics Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of the case background and the legislative provisions affecting it. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. discussion on the amendments and their implications on opposition procedures. (Para 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. arguments surrounding the validity of appeals and procedural adherence under new law. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 4. court’s reasoning emphasizing legislative intent amidst procedural gaps. (Para 28) |
| 5. decision directing high court to resolve appeals based on prevailing law at the time. (Para 30 , 33) |
1Leave granted.
2. For the sake of convenience we refer to the facts mentioned in Civil Appeal No. 5184 of 2008 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 15729 of 2008] filed by J. Mitra & Co. (P) Ltd.
3. This matter is a classic illustration of the confusion which has emerged on account of the postponement of in part commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 .
4. Quite often the commencement of an Act is postponed to some specified future date or to such date as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Provision is also at times made for appointment of different dates for coming into force of different parts of the same Act. This is what has exactly happened
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
