Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (2.39 seconds)
The Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree ... on 9 February, 2024 cites

Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, ... vs M/S. Swaraj Developers & Ors on 17 April, 2003

(iii) Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society, Nagpur Vs. Swaraj Developers12 9 (2003) 11 SCC 92 10 2014 (11) SCC 619, paragraph 27 11 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1536 12 (2003) 6 SCC 659 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 18 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 Submissions of Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1808 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 29 July, 2004

• Firstly, an examination of Section 57 of the 1999 Act in conjunction with Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules reveals that the Registrar and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction over cancellation petitions. Consequently, the definition of 'Appropriate office' should not be interpreted differently for the Registrar and the High Court. The link between the 'Appropriate office' and either the Registrar or the High Court must be consistent, as outlined in Rule 4 of the 2017 Rules, for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 21 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 any cancellation petition. These provisions should be read holistically, and casus omissus should not be readily inferred, as established by the Supreme Court in Maulavi Hussein Haji Abraham Umari v. State Of Gujarat13.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 76 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Madan Mohan Sahoo And Anr. vs State Of Orissa on 27 September, 1995

• In the context of criminal cases, in Madan Mohan Sahu v. State of Orissa18. the High Court of Orissa has clearly held that if the High Court is not defined in the statute, it would be the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the offence. Since the TRA aims to increase access to justice for litigants, jurisdiction should not be restricted to the Registry where the trade mark was granted. He submits that infringement actions are often filed before various High Courts, and the cancellation petition, even if the mark is not registered in that particular High Court's jurisdiction, should be filed and heard alongside the suit. This approach would prevent the multiplicity of proceedings and necessitates a flexible stance towards jurisdiction in cancellation petitions.
Orissa High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1