Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle agro in Pradeep Jain And Another vs Shri Swadesh Kumar Jain And Others on 29 April, 2011Matching Fragments
55. In this factual background, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there has been considerable delay on the part of the plaintiffs and on this fact situation, injunction which is a discretionary relief should not have been granted. In support of the above appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants referred the following decisions:
1) 1994 SCC (2) 448, Power Control Appliances Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.
(2) 2006 (8) SCC (726), Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & others (3) AIR 2008 (SC) 2291, Mandali Ranganna & Others Vs. T.Ramchandra & others (4) 2004 (4) R.A.J. 592 (Del), Bagla & Co. Vs. Bagla Cosmetics (5) 2004 (4) R.A.J. 234 Madras, Minor Kalimuthu Vs. V.K. Arumujham & others (6) 2007 (5) R.A.J. 446 (Del), M/s Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. M/s Philips International & another (7) 2009 (3) R.A.J. 56 (Bom), Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parley Agro Pvt. Ltd.