Committee Of Management & Anr vs Vice Chancellor & Ors on 16 December, 2008
*
in case of Committee of Management Vs. Vice Chancellor
reported in 2009 (2) SCC 630 para 21 and 25 are relevant
therefore, quoted as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003
(See: also Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee & Anr. Vs. C.
K. Rajan & Ors.., 2003 (7) SCC 546)
In this case,
albeit before us for the first time, the vires of the proviso
appended to Sec. 16 of the Act is in question, besides other points
noticed by us hereinbefore.
Bhanu Kumar Jain vs Archana Kumar & Anr on 17 December, 2004
16.
The principles laid down in the case of Chandra Kumar (supra)
virtually embody a rule of law and in view of Article 141 of the
Constitution the same is binding on the High Court. The High Court
fell into an error by allowing the appellants to approach it
in clear violation of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court
in Chandra Kumar [1(1997) 3 SCC 261:1997 SCC (L&S) 577]
M/S Sangham Tape Company vs Hans Raj on 27 September, 2004
Sanjay Sitaram Khemka vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 May, 2006
In such notice
dated 24th
February, 2010, specific direction has been issued to petitioner
that counter statement has been filed by respondent no.5 and invited
attention of petitioner to rule 50 of Trade Marks Rules, 2002 and no
evidence in support of such opposition has been filed by petitioner
and, then, Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks is left with no
alternative but to consider rule 50 sub rule (2) of Trade Marks
Rules, 2002. This crucial notice dated 24th
February, 2010 has been sent to petitioner to his
correct official address. For that, no document has been produced on
record by petitioner that such notice has not been received by
petitioner because envelope has not been produced on record.
Therefore, this being disputed question of fact between the parties,
in such circumstances, this court cannot entertain petition to
decide disputed question of fact as per decision of Hon'ble apex
court in case of SANJAY
SITARAM KHEMKA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.,AIR 2006 SC 2016.
Relevant
discussion made in para 9 and 10 of said judgment is quoted as
under:
Rourkela Shramik Sangh vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. & Anr on 29 January, 2003
11. In
the instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed
questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions
as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is
clearly impermissible. (See: General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini
Mills Ltd., Sultanpur U.P. v. Satrughan Nishad and others (2003 (8)
SCC 639), Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.
and Another (2003(4) SCC 317).
1