Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.66 seconds)
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr. on 18 May, 2023 cites

The Himalaya Drug Company vs M/S. S.B.L. Limited on 9 November, 2012

10.3 In this context, reliance placed on behalf of PPL on the judgment rendered in Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Ltd. MANU/DE5479/2012, is misconceived. The observations made therein that the 1999 TM Act is a complete code were contextualised. It is because the court below had placed reliance on the Lanham Act [ i.e., a U.S. Legislation on Trademarks] that these observations were made. Thus, instant appeals are sustainable. Submissions on Merits:
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 17 - M Singh - Full Document

Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd vs Jindal Exports Ltd on 8 July, 2011

9.9 Likewise, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2011) 8 SCC 333 will not carry the argument advanced on behalf of PPL much further as it concerns the provisions of the 1996 A&C Act. As submitted before, courts, which include the Supreme Court, having regard to the provisions, object and preamble of the 1996 A&C Act have concluded that the supervisory role of courts in the arbitration process should be minimal. It is in this context that the Supreme Court had held in Fuerst Day Lawson that no Letters Patent Appeal would lie, except as provided in Section 50 of the 1996 A&C Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 88 - Cited by 246 - A Alam - Full Document

Vinita M. Khanolkar vs Pragna M. Pai & Ors on 28 November, 1997

Union of India v Aradhna Trading Co. (2002) 4 SCC 447 7 South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v S.B. Sarup Singh (1965) 2 SCR 756 8 Vinita M. Khanolkar v Pragna M. Pai (1998) 1 SCC 500 9 Sharda Devi v State of Bihar (2002) 3 SCC 705 10 Subal Paul v Malina Paul 2003 10 SCC 361 RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2021 & connected matters Page 20 of 48 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:19.05.2023 13:34:08 2023:DHC:3426-DB 15.6 The decision of the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson, which held that the appeal under Letters Patent would not lie was inter alia, founded on the following:
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd vs James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.(J.& P. Coats ... on 7 May, 1953

26. The question that then arises is: whether the fact that there is no provision with regard to the applicability of the provisions of CPC would make any difference to the conclusion that we have reached in the matter? 26.1 In this context, it is to be noticed that in the National Sewing Thread case, when the Supreme Court was called upon to rule on whether an intra- court appeal would lie under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, as applicable to the Gujrat High Court, the decision on the maintainability of the intra-court RFA(OS)(COMM) 8/2021 & connected matters Page 37 of 48 Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:19.05.2023 13:34:08 2023:DHC:3426-DB appeal did not turn on the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 76 of the 1940 TM Act, which provided that the provisions of the CPC would apply to the appeals preferred to the High Court under the Act. 26.2 Clearly, in Sub-section (3) of Section 76 of the said Act and in Sub- section (8) of Section 109 of the 1958 TM Act, provide for the application of the provisions of CPC. A plain reading of the said provisions would show that the CPC applies to appeals preferred with the High Court under the respective statute.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 253 - M C Mahajan - Full Document
1   2 3 Next