Friday, March 27, 2026 | 04:48 PM ISTहिंदी में पढें
Business Standard
Notification Icon
userprofile IconSearch

Share registry case

LEGAL DIGEST

BS Reporter New Delhi
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Intime Spectrum Share Registry Ltd, share registrars dealing in a number of IPOs, challenging a Kolkata court order restraining it from executing any contract signed after August 18, 2006. Rejecting the appeal, the court directed the Alipore trial court to decide on the matter early.
 
The trial court had last month issued the order on a plea by another registrar, MCS Ltd, which alleged that Intime did not comply with a business transfer pact signed on August 18, 2006.
 
MCS had last year approached Intime for transfer of its Registrar to Issue and Share Transfer Agent (RTA) business against consideration to be received in the form of shares. The two registrars later entered into a pact.
 
The subordinate court had restrained Intime from acting in any contract for the business of registrar to an issue and share transfer agent which it entered into after August 18, 2006. Many companies such as Cairn India and Aditya Birla Nuvo had to change their registrars after the Alipore court ruling.
 
Intime had also approached the Calcutta High Court challenging the ex-parte injunction granted by the Alipore court on the ground that MCS Ltd was trying to enforce a right which lapsed prior to the filing of the suit and the order.
 
However, the high court refused to interfere with the ex-parte injunction order and dismissed its appeal. Intime had argued that the restraint order had paralysed its business and hit its reputation.
 
Marketing drugs
 
The Supreme Court has vacated the stay against Hetero Drugs Ltd, the manufacturers of Nadifloxacin cream, the exclusive marketing rights of which were claimed by Wockhardt Ltd. The Madras High Court had imposed the stay and the Supreme Court had partly continued it on the appeal of Hetero Drugs.
 
Hetero Drugs moved the Supreme Court again last week, pointing out that the patent office had refused to grant product patent to Wockhardt on the ground that the pharmaceutical composition of Nadifloxacin and its anti-bacterial activity had already been disclosed in a US patent. It argued that under the changed circumstances, Wockhardt was no more entitled to the stay, granted earlier.
 
Hetero Drugs had started manufacturing and selling the medicine and hence, Wockhardt filed a suit for infringement of the process patent and for exclusive marketing rights. Hetero contended that the product concerned was being manufactured after a licence from the director general. The licence, it said, was granted for manufacturing the medicine in accordance with the process disclosed in the US patent.
 
Staff absorption
 
The question of absorption of employees of a company in the new one which bought it, has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Truck Chalak Evam Helpers Kalyan Samiti, Oswal Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd.
 
The court dismissed the petition of the samiti, which had contended that its 580 members were entitled to be absorbed by the new owner of the company, Shyam Basic Infrastructure Projects Pvt Ltd, to whom Oswal had transferred its entire business last year.
 
A Bench headed by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan rejected the contention, holding that the samiti had made a statement before Allahabad High Court that it would invoke the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act.
 
Design case
 
The Delhi High Court has restrained Wyeth Limited, manufacturer of hair remover cream Anne French, from manufacturing and selling its products with a design similar to that of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd.
 
Passing the restraint order, the court said Reckitt & Benckiser had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad interim protection.
 
Pan masala trademark
 
In a relief to Zee Telefilms Ltd, the Delhi High Court has restrained the Registrar of Trademarks from processing pending applications of a Kolhapur-based local pan masala manufacturer seeking registration of the trademark, "Zee," in its favour.
 
The court also restrained the registrar from advertising any further application in the Trade Marks journal, which may be filed pertaining to the registration of the trademark.

 
 

 

Don't miss the most important news and views of the day. Get them on our Telegram channel

First Published: Feb 08 2007 | 12:00 AM IST

Explore News