Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Landmark Crafts Limited vs Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & ... on 25 February, 2026 cites

Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936

32. Mr. Sindhwani refutes Mr. Sai Deepak's contention that the period of one month stipulated in Rule 100(1) was directory. He submits that Section 57(4) specifically required the Registrar to serve notice "in the prescribed manner". "Prescribed" is defined in Section 2(s) as prescribed by Rules made under the Act. As such, the period of one month envisaged in Rule 100(1) of the Rules is to be regarded as mandatory, applying the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor17.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 800 - Full Document

Smt. Bachahan Devi & Anr vs Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Anr on 5 February, 2008

"A letters patent appeal as permitted under the letters patent is normally an intra-Court appeal whereunder Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise 20 Refer Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 146, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277, and Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur, (2008) 12 SCC 372 21 (1996) 3 SCC 52 Signature Not Verified LPA 575/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 20 of 25 KUMAR Signing Date:25.02.2026 15:47:42 of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language".
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 114 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001

55. The Supreme Court, in Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari24, has defined "substantial", albeit in the context of the expression "substantial question of law", as meaning "having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable". There is no reason why this same understanding of the expression "substantial" should not inform the interpretation of the expression as used in the proviso to Rule 37.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 1602 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Mvs Eduexcellence Pvt Ltd. vs The Registrar Oftrademarks, Delhi on 6 February, 2023

21. Mr. Sai Deepak submits that, if Rule 37 of the Rules is read in conjunction with Rule 25(1)15 thereof, it is manifest that it was incumbent on the Dy RTM to call for a fresh user affidavit before allowing the amendment as sought in the application dated 13 December 2018, as it amounted to a substantial alteration in the mark. He relies, for this purpose, on the judgment of one of us, rendered sitting singly, in MVS Eduexcellence Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trademarks16. The failure to file a fresh user affidavit, he submits, violated the mandate of the Rules.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Arvind Kumar Jaiswal (D) Thr. Lr. vs Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun on 13 February, 2023

"A letters patent appeal as permitted under the letters patent is normally an intra-Court appeal whereunder Letters Patent Bench, sitting as a Court of Correction, corrects its own orders in exercise 20 Refer Arvind Kumar Jaiswal v. Devendra Prasad Jaiswal Varun, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 146, Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277, and Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur, (2008) 12 SCC 372 21 (1996) 3 SCC 52 Signature Not Verified LPA 575/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 20 of 25 KUMAR Signing Date:25.02.2026 15:47:42 of the same jurisdiction as was vested in the single Bench. Such is not an appeal against an order of a subordinate Court. In such appellate jurisdiction the High Court exercises the powers of a Court of Error. So understood, the appellate power under the Letters Patent is quite distinct, in contrast to what is ordinarily understood in procedural language".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - M M Sundresh - Full Document
1