1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2105 of 2009 (M/S) 1. M/s Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd, through its Director Ravindra Nara at Unit No. 2, Electronic Co-operative Industrial Estate Off Pune Satara Road, Pune-411009. 2. Mr. Ravindra Nara, Director of M/s Intelux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. At Unit No. 2, Electronic Co-operative Industrial Estate Off Pune Satara Road, Pune-411009. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. M/s Acme Tele Power Limited through its authorized signatory, Plot No. 3-8, 29-34, Sector V, IIE, SIDCUL, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. 2. Telecom Network Services Pvt. Ltd. At A-44A, Sector-16, Noida-201003. 3. Mohanlal Shah at House No. 30, Mahalla Lal Bazar, Tehsil & District Almora. 4. G.N. Thirumalesh , Principal Officer Inteux Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Pune Satara Road, 411009 (as per plaint). …..Respondents. Sri Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sri Manu Beri & Sri Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioners. Date:- December 15, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the District Judge, Almora and further also sought mandamus directing the District Judge, Almora to transfer the Civil Suit No. 4 of 2009 titled as Acme Tele Power Limited Vs. Intelux Electronics (P) Limited. 2 Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that on 12.10.2009 the respondent no. 1 had filed civil suit bearing no. 4 of 2009 for permanent injunction against the petitioners and others for restraining the infingement of Patent, Trademark, Copyright, damages, delivery up etc. The petitioners have filed counter claim and moved an application under Section 104 of the Patents Act, 1970. According to the petitioners, the District Judge is not having jurisdiction of the patent cases and there is a provision under Section 104 of the Patents Act that if the counter claim is lodged by the respondent, the suit along with the counter claim shall be transferred to the High Court for decision. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2009, the District Judge has given time to file objection to the respondent and fixed date 21.12.2009 for disposal of the application. On 30.11.2009 the court fees was not paid on the counter claim and petitioner sought one week time to file the court fees. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that the court fees had already been paid by the petitioner in the suit on counter claim. Since the application is pending for disposal, it has to be decided by the court after considering the objection of the respondents. The writ petition is premature at this stage, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. However, the District Judge is directed to dispose of the application 68-S as per provision of Section 104 of the Patent Act on merit after considering the objection of the respondent as expeditiously as possible within a period 3 of 30 days from the date 21.12.2009 that is already fixed by the District Judge. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) 15.12.2009 RMY