Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.79 seconds)
The Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree ... on 9 February, 2024 cites

M/S. Innoventive Industries Ltd vs Icici Bank on 31 August, 2017

• The 1999 Act consolidates and amends the existing trade marks law, and is, thus, a self-contained code. The legal position in respect of such consolidating statutes has been repeatedly settled by the Supreme Court for example in Innovative Industries v. ICICI Bank3, in the context of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ('IBC'). The Court should not place reliance on the definition of 'High Court' under Section 4 of the 1958 Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 333 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar vs S.M.Kantha Raju (Dead) Thr. Lr. on 16 August, 2017

• Thus, the position prevalent under the 1940 Act would, in fact, be similar to the present position except the two decisions which, according to him, have a bearing under 1999 Act while deciding as to what would be the High Court for exercising jurisdiction. The first decision relied upon is Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar v. S. Kanthu 4 AIR 1959 Mad. 251 5 AIR 1952 Punj. 266 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 14 of 70 By:RAHUL Signing Date:09.02.2024 19:16:40 Raju6. The said decision is asserted to be applicable in the present case, where the term 'the High Court' is used in the 1999 Act, without a specific definition within the Act, suggesting that it should be construed based on its general meaning as understood in law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Federal Express Corporation vs Fedex Securities Ltd. & Ors. on 11 April, 2017

Relying upon the said test, it is argued that even the Delhi High Court in Federal Express Corporation v. Fedex Securities Ltd.17 has taken the view that if a trivial or an insignificant part of the cause of action arises in Delhi, the Court would not have jurisdiction. Therefore, as long as the substantiality of the cause of action is considered, the concern that relaxing jurisdiction would lead to increased pendency is mitigated. In 16 1984 SCC OnLine Pat 345.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - R K Gauba - Full Document
1