Search Results Page
Search Results
51 - 60 of 61 (0.27 seconds)Section 15 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 19 in The Designs Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
P.S. Sathappan (Dead) By Lrs vs Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors on 7 October, 2004
Insofar as the other judgments cited by the respondent no.1 in support of
his submissions against the maintainability of the present appeal are
concerned, we notice that the judgment in the case of P.S. Sathappan
(supra) cited by the respondent was duly considered by Kamal Kumar
Dutta (supra) in paragraph 26 thereof and after noting several other
judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section
100A of the Code would bar a Letters Patent appeal against an order passed
by an Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court on an appeal under section
10F of the Companies Act, 1956 against the order of the CLB.
Vasanthi vs Venugopal (D) Thr. Lrs on 21 March, 2017
38. The judgment in the case of Vasanthi (supra) is an authority inter alia on
the point that only Letters Patent appeal, filed prior to the coming into force
of Section 100A of the Code would be maintainable and by virtue of the Bar
Page 26 of 27
contend therein Letters Patent appeal filed thereafter would not be
maintainable.
Promoshirt Sm Sa vs Armassuisse And Another on 19 September, 2023
35. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to not extend the
prohibition contained in Section 100A of the Code to appeals filed under
Section 91 of the 1999 Act. We therefore respectfully disagree with the view
taken by the Delhi High Court in the case of Promoshirt SM SA (supra).
Resilient Innovations Private Limited vs Phonepe Private Limited on 11 April, 2022
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) rendered by another Division
Bench of Delhi High Court is distinguishable inasmuch as the same arises
out of a case under Section 57 of the 1999 Act. Section 57 of the 1999 Act
contemplates application for rectification filed before the Registrar or High
Court. It is therefore an original proceeding and not an appellate proceeding.
The same would therefore be outside the purview of the provisions of Section
100A of the Code and Letters Patent appeals thereagainst would be
maintainable before the Division Bench.
Nahida Rishad Cooper vs Rishad Darayas Cooper on 18 May, 2018
16. The same principle was reiterated by this Court in Bharat Bank
Ltd. v. Employees [Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees, 1950 SCC 470 : 1950 SCR 459]
and Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay [Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay,
(1953) 1 SCC 736 : 1953 SCR 730] where the test of a judicial tribunal as laid
down in a passage from Cooper v. Wilson [Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB 309 at p.
340 (CA)] was adopted by this Court: (Cooper case [Cooper v. Wilson, (1937) 2 KB
309 at p. 340 (CA)], KB pp. 340-41)
"... A true judicial decision presupposes an existing dispute between two or
more parties, and then involves four requisites: