Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Electronica India Ltd vs Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd. ... on 15 April, 2024 cites

Vali Pattabhirama Rao And Anr. vs Sri Ramanuja Ginning And Rice Factory P. ... on 26 December, 1983

9. Mr. Kamat, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 1 has on the other hand, submitted that the Respondent No. 1 cannot be made to suffer due to any acts done/not done by the Registrar/Trademark Registry with respect to the order dated 25th January 2018. Grave prejudice and irreparable loss will be caused to Respondent No. 1 in the event the matter is sent back to the Registrar for fresh consideration under Section 45, as the registration of trademark would exist in vacuum. He has addressed this Court on the merits of TM-24 Application made by the Respondent No. 1 and has referred to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vali Pattabhirama Rao Vs. Sri Ramanuja Ginning and Rice Factory 1 at paragraphs 19 and 28, in support of his submission that no document is required for conversion of a partnership to a company. In the present case, the subject trademark "Electronica" was registered in the name of the partnership firm M/s. Electronica from 2004 both under Class 7 and Class 9 of the Trade Marks Act and the subject 1 AIR 1984 ANDHRA PRADESH 176 6/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2024 13:25:26 ::: 8-COMMP-47-&-51-22.doc mark had thereafter automatically vested in Respondent No. 1 Company upon the firm's conversion to part IX Company under the Companies Act which would amount to transmission. This conversion was on 30th March 2011 where all three partners of the erstwhile Firm agreed to and were promoters and directors of Respondent No.1.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 58 - Cited by 27 - K J Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India And Others vs I.T.C. Limited on 16 July, 1993

10. Mr. Kamat has submitted that upon conversion of a partnership Firm into a limited company under part IX of the Companies Act, all assets of firm stand automatically transferred to and vest in the company without a necessary instrument or document. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in HEM Corporation Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs. ITC Limited2 at paragraphs 5, 19 and
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 89 - K Singh - Full Document

Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr vs Kailash Chandra Ahuja on 8 July, 2008

32. Accordingly, I do not consider the remand back to the Respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration of the TM-24 applications to be a futile exercise and in fact, the same is much warranted, in the present case. The submissions with regard to the principle of natural justice having considerably changed as contended by Mr. Kamat and reliance placed by him upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. (supra) and Haryana Financial Corporation (supra) are inapplicable in the present case, particularly, considering that there has been no order which has been passed by the Respondent No. 2 as admitted by Respondent No. 2 and hence, the issuance of an order would be a pre-requisite for the decisions to apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 227 - C K Thakker - Full Document

L.K.S. Gold Palace And Ors. vs L.K.S. Gold House P. Ltd. on 6 March, 2004

20. He has further submitted that when a partnership Firm was converted to a company under part IX of the Companies Act, there is no transfer which is involved i.e. there is neither a transferor nor tansferee. Such a conversion of partnership Firm to a company under part IX of the Companies Act would amount to transmission. He has relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in L.K.S. Gold 2 SCC OnLine Bom 551 7/23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/04/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2024 13:25:26 ::: 8-COMMP-47-&-51-22.doc Palace and Ors. Vs. L.K.S. Gold House P. Ltd.3 at paragraph 4.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1