Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing V. R. Holdings vs Hero Investocorp Limited & Anr. on 4 August, 2023

Three N-Product Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr. on 16 October, 2023

8.9 Mr. Sai Deepak also relies on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in B. Mohamed Yousuff v. M/s Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh8, which holds that writ petitions, challenging orders passed by the IPAB, would lie before a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras. He also relied on the judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. Phonepe Pvt. Ltd.9 and V.R. Holdings v. Hero Investocorp Ltd10.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Promoshirt Sm Sa vs Armassuisse And Another on 6 September, 2023

63. Reverting to Avtar Narain Behal, we find that the subject matter of the said decision were proceedings which had been initiated before a District Judge under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and which had then proceeded to see the filing of an appeal before a Single Judge of this Court in terms of Section 299 thereof. It is pertinent to note at this stage that Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, also imported the provisions of the Code to such an appeal and thus stood on an identical plane as Section 76 (3) of the 1940 TM Act and Section 109(8) of the 1958 TM Act. The Full Bench of our Court in Avtar Narain Behal, upon due consideration ultimately came to hold that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Subal Paul and P.S. Sathappan, were authoritative pronouncements on the letters patent power being taken away by an appropriate legislative measure. The Court in Avtar Narain Behal also read and interpreted Kamal Kumar Dutta, as being an authority for the proposition that a letters patent appeal against a decision rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising under a special statute would be barred by Section 100-A of the Code. Further, it was observed that the non-obstante clause as embodied in Section 100-A of the Code was a clear indication of the intent of the Legislature to completely bar an LPA which may be preferred against a judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order. The Full Bench LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 108 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 went on further to hold that the language of Section 100-A of the Code cannot be construed as restricting the exclusion of the right of appeal under the Letters Patent only to matters arising under the Code and not under other enactments.
Delhi High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023

63. Reverting to Avtar Narain Behal, we find that the subject matter of the said decision were proceedings which had been initiated before a District Judge under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and which had then proceeded to see the filing of an appeal before a Single Judge of this Court in terms of Section 299 thereof. It is pertinent to note at this stage that Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, also imported the provisions of the Code to such an appeal and thus stood on an identical plane as Section 76 (3) of the 1940 TM Act and Section 109(8) of the 1958 TM Act. The Full Bench of our Court in Avtar Narain Behal, upon due consideration ultimately came to hold that the decisions of the Supreme Court in Subal Paul and P.S. Sathappan, were authoritative pronouncements on the letters patent power being taken away by an appropriate legislative measure. The Court in Avtar Narain Behal also read and interpreted Kamal Kumar Dutta, as being an authority for the proposition that a letters patent appeal against a decision rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising under a special statute would be barred by Section 100-A of the Code. Further, it was observed that the non-obstante clause as embodied in Section 100-A of the Code was a clear indication of the intent of the Legislature to completely bar an LPA which may be preferred against a judgment rendered by a Single Judge in an appeal arising from an original or appellate decree or order. The Full Bench LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 108 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 went on further to hold that the language of Section 100-A of the Code cannot be construed as restricting the exclusion of the right of appeal under the Letters Patent only to matters arising under the Code and not under other enactments.
Delhi High Court Cites 181 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

M/S.Shambhunath & Bros vs Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd on 12 December, 2025

“4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, has held that the embargo under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act applies only to orders passed in suits filed under the Code of Civil Procedure and it does not apply to orders passed under special Statute, when jurisdiction is assumed by the Court and conferred under statute.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Omega Ecotech Products India Pvt. Ltd vs /

9. When a similar issue came before the High Court of Delhi in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, has held that there is a distinction between the High Court exercising its original civil jurisdiction and when it assumes ____________ Page Nos.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:53:06 pm ) O.S.A.(CAD).SR.No.90611 of 2024 jurisdiction to decide by virtue of an independent statutory conferral of power. The jurisdiction to entertain rectification applications, which was conferred with erstwhile IPAB and now transferred to High Court by virtue of the Tribunals Reforms Act under which the IPAB was abolished. Therefore, the power exercised by the Learned Single Judge when entertaining a petition filed for rectification, its jurisdiction is conferred under the special Statute and not in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, being a final order, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in O.P.(PT).No.1 of 2023 is appealable. Hence, the appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Mr.Ali Asgar And Mr.Mutahir vs / on 9 October, 2025

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, has held that the embargo under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act applies only to orders passed in suits filed under the Code of Civil Procedure and it does not apply to orders passed under special Statute, when jurisdiction is assumed by the Court and conferred under statute.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Tamil Nadu vs /

4. When a similar issue arose, this Court, after considering the language used in Section 13 (1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673. The Court has held that in case of order passed by the Learned Single Judge in an original petition filed for rectification of a Trademark or patent, the High Court would be exercising its power not under the Code of Civil Procedure but under Letters Patent Jurisdiction. Therefore, the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 cannot be looked into for maintainability of the appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Tamil Nadu vs /

4. When a similar issue arose, this Court, after considering the language used in Section 13 (1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in V.R.Holdings Pvt Ltd vs. Hero Investcorp Limited and another, reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 4673, held that in case of an order passed by the Learned Single Judge in an Original Petition filed for rectification of a Trademark or patent, the High Court would be exercising its power not under the Code of Civil Procedure but under Letters Patent Jurisdiction. Therefore, the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of C.P.C., cannot be looked into for maintainability of the appeal.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document
1