Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr. on 18 May, 2023

V. R. Holdings vs Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr. on 4 August, 2023

2. When we heard the matter on 10 July 2023, we took note of the preliminary objection which was raised at the behest of respondent no. 1 relating to the maintainability of the present LPA itself. Admittedly, the question of maintainability of an LPA against a judgement rendered by a learned Judge of the Court on a petition under Section 57 of the TMA had directly fallen for consideration before a Coordinate Bench of the Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.3 and came to be answered in the affirmative.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

Three N-Product Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 October, 2023

8.9 Mr. Sai Deepak also relies on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in B. Mohamed Yousuff v. M/s Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh8, which holds that writ petitions, challenging orders passed by the IPAB, would lie before a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras. He also relied on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonepe Pvt. Ltd.9 and V.R. Holdings v. Hero Investocorp Ltd10.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Promoshirt Sm Sa vs Armassuisse And Another on 6 September, 2023

60. However, and before we proceed to consider the decision handed down by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar Narain Behal, it would be apposite to notice two recent decisions which were rendered in the context of the 1999, TM Act and whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against a judgment rendered by a learned Judge while entertaining an appeal under the aforesaid statute. The question firstly fell for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Phonepe Private Limited and Anr.31. While Section 100-A of the Code was not adverted to, the Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd., did have an occasion to notice Section 76 of the 1940 TM Act as well as Section 109(5) of the 1958 TM Act. The Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. went on to make the following pertinent observations in this regard:
Delhi High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023

60. However, and before we proceed to consider the decision handed down by the Full Bench of this Court in Avtar Narain Behal, it would be apposite to notice two recent decisions which were rendered in the context of the 1999, TM Act and whether a Letters Patent Appeal would lie against a judgment rendered by a learned Judge while entertaining an appeal under the aforesaid statute. The question firstly fell for consideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Phonepe Private Limited and Anr.31. While Section 100-A of the Code was not adverted to, the Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd., did have an occasion to notice Section 76 of the 1940 TM Act as well as Section 109(5) of the 1958 TM Act. The Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. went on to make the following pertinent observations in this regard:
Delhi High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1