IPR IPAB - ORA/188&189/08/TM/CH

Misc. Petition No.                              :  Transferred Application/Appeal No: Original Application/Appeal No      :	ORA/188&189/08/TM/CH (PART HEARD)

Applicant/Appellant M/S VENSIL GLASS WORKS LTD.		Representative A.A. MOHAN
Versus
Respondent M/S TENSIL GLASS WORKS & ANOTHER		Representative FOX MANDAL & ASSOCAITES
	CORAM
	HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN HON’BLE MS. S. USHA		Chairman Vice Chairman

ORDER SHEET

        3.10.2011

Status of  notice: I) Applicant/    Appellant: 1) Served/  Returned Unserved/    Service Awaited  Representative: 1) Served/  Returned Unserved/    Service Awaited  II) Respondent: 1) Served/  Returned Unserved/    Service Awaited  2) Served/  Returned Unserved/    Service Awaited  3) Served/  Returned Unserved/    Service Awaited  Representative: 1) Served/  Returned Unserved/    Service Awaited

Counsel for Applicant/                    Appellant : Ms. Subha Shiney Counsel for Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan When the matter was part heard and just when the counsel for respondent was about to commence his arguments a request was made on behalf of the applicant that they had suddenly unearthed some documents which are crucial for the disposal of the matter and would they be permitted to file an M.P. to receive these documents.           The application is of the year 2008. It has been on this file for three years. The applicant had three long years to discover and produce whatever documents he felt was necessary for his case. But for some curious reason, which we were unable to understand, the applicant has chosen to discover these documents only after he has concluded his arguments. The whole object of setting up this IPAB is to see that litigations pertaining to intellectual property disputes are disposed of at the earliest. But we find to our dismay that at every stage we are prevented from doing so by the filing of necessary and unnecessary M.Ps. Recently we came across a matter where after the orders were reserved the applicant came up with an M.P. to file additional documents. We cannot approve of this. However, we do not want to be faulted with a grievance that we prevented the applicant from producing vital documents and thus there was a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we adjourn this matter. It will be listed as and when the M.P.s are filed. VICE-CHAIRMAN                                                             CHAIRMAN