Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 8479 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998

M/S. South Indian Bank Ltd. vs Naveen Mathew Philip on 17 April, 2023

Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other judgments, then the High Court 14 may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order.”  Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345, “18. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution — ARC — the appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 312 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

M/S Vishwakarma Techno Forge & Anr vs District Magistrate & Ors on 18 December, 2023

Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Jharkhand State Mineral Development ... vs The Union Of India on 24 November, 2021

28. However, while entertaining an objection as to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court should bear in mind the fact that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provisions of the Constitution. The High Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions in the exercise of this power. ([Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1].) And this plenary right of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the Court to the exclusion of other available remedies unless such action of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction.'
Jharkhand High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - R Shankar - Full Document

M/S.Saran Agency vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 19 March, 2010

18.Reliance was also made on the reported decision in Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and more particularly the observations in paragraphs 14 and 15 thereof. The learned counsel points out that the Apex Court has held that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution does not operate as a bar in three contingencies; (I) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;(ii)where there is violation of principles of natural justice; and (iii)where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. These observations were made in the backdrop of the facts that in the reported decision, a showcause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks under Sec.56(4) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was challenged by a writ petition. There can be no dispute regarding the principles but it has already been pointed out that there is no question of enforcement of any fundamental rights in this petition, particularly because the Corporation has relied upon the specific clauses of the agreement to terminate the contract and, therefore, the action cannot be termed as wholly arbitrary. It has also been shown that there would be no question of violation of principles of natural justice, as not only the showcause notice has been served, but there are documents in the records to suggest that the reply to that show cause notice has been thoroughly considered and the corporation is acting on the basis of the agreement which has been entered into by the petitioner with open eyes. For these reasons, the judgment is of no assistance.
Madras High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Siddharth Sahib Singh vs Apex Council Of Ddca on 10 July, 2023

(i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1].) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 8634/2023 Page 17 of 30 By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR Signing Date:10.07.2023 10:44:33 appellants' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."
Delhi High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Reserved On: 23.12.2024 vs The Deputy General Manager Of Baroda & ... on 10 January, 2025

(See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1].) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants' dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent reason. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings."(emphasis supplied)
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

M/S Neelkanth Yarn vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 2 August, 2023

Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2023 20:43:50 :::CIS 36 Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 4 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

M/S Dynamic Sales vs District Magistrate on 4 August, 2023

Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2023 20:35:29 :::CIS 18 Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 3 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

Rakshit Ashwinbhai Patel vs Authorized Officer, State Bank Of ... on 27 April, 2023

Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order."
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Airports Authority Of India vs M/S.Lite Bite Foods Private Limted on 24 January, 2024

The question is one of propriety in exercise of the discretion, especially in the absence of the four parameters culled out in paragraph no.15 of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai [(1998) 8 SCC 1] This Court is therefore of the opinion that an interference under Article 227 is not warranted as against the order of the Sub Court, Manjeri, dated 22.11.2023, dismissing I.A. No.2/2023.
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next