Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.73 seconds)
Documents citing Satpal And Another vs State Of Punjab & Others on 11 October, 2010

Gopal Sabu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2024

40. The next contention raised on behalf of the applicants is that legal mandate of Section 115(4) of the Act has not been complied with. It has been contended that it is mandatory that search and seizure under the Act can only be done by the person not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this case, search and seizure has been conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, which is violation of above mandatory provisions. It has also been contended that proper opinion under Section 115(4) of the Act is required to be sought from the Registrar of Trade Marks before registration of FIR and investigation in the matter and in this matter police authorities have not obtained proper opinion relating to dispute pertaining to mark 'SACHAMOTI' and have formed opinion on the baseless findings and opinions. A proper opinion is a sine-qua-non before proceeding under the provisions of the Act. To bolster his submission, learned counsel placed reliance in the cases of Kasim Ali (Supra), Mihir Surendrabhai Shah (Supra) and Satpal (Supra).
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Prakash Prabhu vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2021

6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of SATPAL AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS reported in 2010 SCC Online P & H 10179 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.3, 7 and 10 of the judgment. Referring the same, the learned counsel would submit that as per sub- clause (4) of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police can search and seize for goods regarding offence under Sections 103, 104 and 105. He also brought to the notice of this Court that the word "shall" in the proviso is indication of the fact that the provision is indeed mandatory. The said offences could have only been investigated by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

P.Manikam vs State Represented By on 15 June, 2017

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the requirement of the proviso to sub-section 4 of Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is mandatory and the same was not complied with. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Satpal and another v. State of Punjab and others [2010 SCC Online P& H 10179], wherein the following observations are to be found:
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - C T Selvam - Full Document

Mahesh Chander And Others vs State Of Punjab on 7 September, 2011

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations in the FIR are taken to be true, at the most it could be an offence under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short, `the Act'), in terms of which search of any premises could be carried out by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and that too with prior approval of the Registrar under the Act. In the present case, search was conducted by Sub Inspector of Police. He further submitted that offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out as there is no complaint by any person that he has been cheated. Referring to a judgment of this court in Satpal and another v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 281, the submission is that on account of violation of the aforesaid mandatory provisions of the Act, even the FIR was quashed by this court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R Bindal - Full Document
1