Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.45 seconds)
M/S.Allied Blenders And Distillers ... vs / on 1 September, 2009 cites

Hastimal Jain Trading As Oswal ... vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. on 8 December, 1999

Relying upon the dicta in Hastimal Jain (supra) the learned single Judge held that the Registrar was justified in making an order about abandonment. This view also stands to reason for the simple reason otherwise it will mean that there will be a separate and extended time limit for filing prescribed fee. As seen earlier the Form TM-5 clearly states at the top of it that the fee prescribed is Rs.2,500/-. It is a special Act and one has to be vigilant and careful about ones right and steps to be taken. To oppose the registration of a trade mark, one has to go in the particular manner as prescribed under the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - S N Variava - Full Document

Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors vs Govind Joti Chavare And Ors on 4 March, 1975

This dicta has been followed in a number of judgments and to cite one, in Ramachandra Keshav Adke Vs. V.Govind Jyoti Chavare reported in AIR 1975 SC 915, the question before the Apex Court was with respect to surrender of a tenancy by a tenant in order to be valid and effective under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Apex Court held that the surrender had to be done in the manner prescribed under the Act and then only it would be effective.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 313 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

Mukri Gopalan vs Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker on 12 July, 1995

In Mukri Gopalan Vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker reported in (1995) 5 SCC 5 the Apex Court was concerned with the special provision of limitation provided under Section 18 of the Kerala Rent Control Act. Although there was no express exclusion of any provision, in view of this special provision the Apex Court held that the provisions of the Special Rent Act on limitation will apply.
Supreme Court of India Cites 78 - Cited by 187 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001

26. Similarly, in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company reported in (2001) 8 SCC 470 while considering the limitation under Section 34(3) and its proviso as occurring in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Apex Court held that the express exclusion can also be inferred from the scheme and objectives of the Act, one of which was to restrict judicial intervention in arbitral matters as much as possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 678 - R Pal - Full Document

Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969

28. The last submission of Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General is that a litigant should not be made to suffer on account of the failure on the part of its counsel or power of attorney holder as in the present case. Mr.Raman, relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in Lala Mata Din Vs. A.Narayanan reported in (1969) 2 SCC 770. That was a case concerning a suite for rendition of accounts and an error had crept up in the manner in which the valuation of the reliefs was done, which was because of the mistake of their counsel. It was in that background that the time was extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, as seen above, we are concerned with a special Act, where there are specific provisions to act in a particular manner for filing the notice of opposition to the registration as well as for filing the counter statement. It may also be noted that it is a specialized field where specialized attorneys appear for the parties. That apart, an effective alternative remedy is very much available to the petitioner under the statute by filing a rectification application under Section 57 of the Act, which the petitioner has already filed. The only difference between the two proceedings will be that in the rectification proceedings the burden of proof will be on the petitioner, whereas in the opposition proceedings the burden of proof will be on the respondent  3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 242 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1