Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Apl Apollo Tubes Ltd. vs Surya Roshni Limited on 3 January, 2017

Kalpesh R Jain And 2 Ors vs Mandev Tubes Pvt. Ltd on 20 February, 2018

Further, the counsel for the appellant concedes that unfortunately the said material was not placed before the trial court. However, he was armed with the material which would demonstrate that the design of the plaintiff is hit by the case of prior publication and lack of novelty/originality and the plaintiff had suppressed the prior Borey 24/47 ::: Uploaded on - 21/02/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2018 01:57:55 ::: spb/ comapeal-133-17R.doc publication on its own accord as back as in November / December, 2008. The learned counsel would argue that the material sought to be relied upon, ought to be allowed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the CPC, since this is a case of infringement and passing off and public interest is at stake. He placed reliance on the judgment in the case of APL Apollo Tubes Ltd. vs. Surya Roshni Limited, reported in 2011 (5) Bom. C.R 456.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - B Dangre - Full Document

The Raring Corporation And Anr vs Neogie Engineering Works Pvt Ltd on 20 June, 2023

In support of their contentions, the respondent relies on the decisions in Tecalemit Ld. vs. Ewarts, Ld. (1927) 44 RPC 503, Amp Incorporated vs. Utilux Proprietary Limited (1972) RPC 103, Stenor Ltd. vs. Whitesides (1946) 63 RPC 81, Smithkline Beecham vs. Hindustan Lever Limited (2000) 52 DRJ 55 and APL Apollo Tubes vs Surya Roshni Limited (2017) 72 PTC 229.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R K Kapur - Full Document
1