Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Shyam Steel Industries Limited vs Shyam Sel And Power Limited & Anr on 24 December, 2019

Usco S.P.A. And Anr vs Twin Parts Pvt. Ltd. And Ors on 3 July, 2023

9130 (Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. Shyamsel& Power Limited and Another).Relying upon these two judgments, the defendants have tried to distinguish the sale by the plaintiffs under the name "USCO" at the highest be a brand name and cannot be plaintiffs mark which calls for an infringement action when the mark of the defendants are registered. The defendant nos. 2 & 5 also highlights the delay aspect in the plaintiffs approaching the Court for injunction.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Mukherjee - Full Document

O. Paneerselvam vs Edappadi K. Palaniswami on 11 January, 2024

"26. It is thus clear that there was no adjudication with regard to the rights of the respondent-plaintiff to get an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad-interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent- plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a 'judgment' inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad-interim injunction or not. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge did not contain the traits and trappings of finality. If it is held otherwise, this will open a floodgate of appeals for parties who may even challenge the order of adjournment or grant of time to the other side to file affidavit-in-reply. We are therefore of the considered view that the order dated 02-04-2019 (Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., vs. Shyam Sel & Power Limited., 2019 SCC Online Cal 9130 cannot be construed to be a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and as such, the appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court was not tenable."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

O. Paneerselvam vs Edappadi K. Palaniswami on 11 January, 2024

"26. It is thus clear that there was no adjudication with regard to the rights of the respondent-plaintiff to get an ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad-interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent- plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a 'judgment' inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad-interim injunction or not. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge did not contain the traits and trappings of finality. If it is held otherwise, this will open a floodgate of appeals for parties who may even challenge the order of adjournment or grant of time to the other side to file affidavit-in-reply. We are therefore of the considered view that the order dated 02-04-2019 (Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., vs. Shyam Sel & Power Limited., 2019 SCC Online Cal 9130 cannot be construed to be a 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and as such, the appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court was not tenable."
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document
1