Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (2.67 seconds)
Documents citing P.M. Diesel Ltd. vs Patel Field Marshall Industries on 20 August, 2008

Carlsberg Breweries A/S vs Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd. on 14 December, 2018

24. Noticing that whereas in Dhoda House the infringement complained of primarily was that of 1958 Act and not under the 1957 Act, in Patel Field Marshal (supra) the thrust was on the sale of products and/or advertisement by the appellant for registration of trade marks in the Trade Marks Journal and other local papers. The law was stated in the following terms:
Delhi High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. International Film Distributors vs Shri Rishi Raj on 23 October, 2008

"The jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defence taken by the defendant and it is the allegation made in the plaint which decide the forum as was held in the case of P.M.Diesel Ltd vs. Patel Field Marshal, reported in AIR 1998 Delhi 225. In view of the nature of statement made in the plaint read with the documents placed on record, I am of prima FAO (OS) No.81/2002 Page 8 of 26 facie opinion that this Hon‟ble court has the jurisdiction to try this suit. This, however, is my tentative view at this stage only for the purpose of deciding of issue of grant of interim injunction. The right, which is claimed by the plaintiff pursuant to agreement with the Official Assignee dated 20 th December 2000 could be prima facie established by the plaintiff in Delhi. The plaintiff has also claimed injunction regarding threatened breach of its rights at Delhi and, therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that this Hon‟ble court does not have the territorial jurisdiction."
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - M Singh - Full Document

Tirupati Texknit Limited vs Allahabad Bank on 1 July, 2010

11.9 Mr Bansal on the other hand submitted that the division Bench could not have ruled contrary to the earlier judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Fenner India Ltd. vs Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 67 (1997) DLT 673, P.M. Diesel vs Patel Field Marshall Industries 1998 PTC 260 (DB) and Wockhardt Veterinary Ltd vs M/s Raj Medicos & Anr. 1998 RLR 353. Mr Bansal submitted that the said judgment of the Division Bench was not good law. It was Mr Bansal‟s submission that in the event the Division Bench disagreed CS(OS) 1975/1997 Page 25 of 35 with the judgment of an earlier Division Bench it ought to have referred the matter to a larger bench.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - R Shakdher - Full Document

M/S Guanji Marotrao Thaokar & Co vs M/S Vinod Biri Company on 31 October, 2013

14(g) Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the ratio in 'P. M. Diesels Ltd. Vs. Patel Field Marshal Industries, 1998 PTC 18 (Delhi)' to contend that for determination of territorial jurisdiction the court is required to just look into the allegations made in the plaint. The jurisdiction of the court does not depend upon the defence of the opposite party. The question in the said case was considered at preliminary stage of deciding the application for temporary injunction. On a specific issue having been framed, the plaintiff is required to establish the ground by leading evidence on which the jurisdiction of Delhi Court was claimed. 14(h) Territorial jurisdiction of this court was invoked on two grounds namely the sale of infringing goods by the defendant in Delhi and the plaintiff having its branch office herein, as per para 18 of the plaint. Not a single piece of reliable evidence could be adduced even to draw inference of availability of defendant's goods under trademark "Sarvoshrest Thawkar Zarda" in Delhi in the face of outright denial of the defendant from the beginning that they are marketing TM No. 6 of 2010 Page No. 12 of 18 their products in Delhi. There is therefore no question of the plaintiff perceiving any threat of invasion of the territory of Delhi by the products of defendant. 14(i) As has been noted above, the plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate having commercial sale of its products from the alleged branch office within the jurisdiction of this court. Both the issues thus are decided in negative.
Delhi District Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Itc Ltd vs Irinjalakuda Town Co-Operative Bank ... on 11 April, 2017

In P.M. Diesels Ltd. v. Patel Field Marshall Industries, (1998) PTC 260, the court held: "The jurisdiction of a Court does not depend upon the defence taken by a defendant and it is the allegations made in the plaint which decide the forum. The Court, while considering an application for grant of temporary injunction can, however, go into the question whether, prima facie, it has jurisdiction or not and for the said purpose not only the pleadings but the affidavits, documents and other material on record can be examined. Therefore, for the purpose of forming prima facie opinion, the Court can travel beyond what is adverted in the plaint".
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Nupur Mehta vs Bennett Coleman And Company Ltd. And Ors on 11 September, 2025

48. We fully endorse and adopt the view taken by the two learned Single Judges and with respect find ourselves unable to accept the reasoning of the Division Bench in Wockhardt v. Raj Medicos (supra-14) and Fenner India Ltd. v. Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra-10), which was followed in P.M. Diesels Ltd. v. Patel Field Marshal Industries (supra-12), as these three judgments had failed to notice the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Commercial Aviation (supra-6) and Abdul Hamid Shamsi (supra-5). In the normal course, if a Division Bench does not agree with another Division Bench the matter ought to be referred to a Larger Bench. However, since we have found the Division Bench in Fenner India (supra-10) case not to have noticed the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commercial Aviation (supra-6) and Abdul Hamid Shamsi (supra-5), we have laid down the law by following the above CS(OS) 376/2025 Page 7 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - M P Arora - Full Document
1