Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Pacs vs Union on 6 September, 2010 cites

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]
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 329 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural ... vs Sahngoo Ram Arya And Anr. on 7 May, 2002

41. Learned Advocate Mr. Tolia has vehemently emphasized by relying upon section 95 of the Act that immediate interim relief is not available because appellate board must have to hear other side after supplying copy of appeal and interim relief application to other side and, therefore, it is very difficult for petitioner to get immediate interim order ex parte from appellate board. For that, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi has emphasized negligence on the part of petitioner or lapse or deliberate delay or conduct on the part of petitioner as such which otherwise also disentitle petitioner from interim relief immediately either from this Court or from appellate board under section 95 of the Act. Order in question has been passed by Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks on 17.5.2010. This order has not been received by petitioner as per his contention, therefore, on 24.6.2010, documents and copy of order were demanded by petitioner from Registrar of Trade Marks after making payments. So, application was made on 24.6.2010 and documents including order in question were supplied to petitioner on 21.7.2010 and thereafter affidavit has been affirmed on 25.7.2010 and matter was filed in Registry of this Court on 16.8.2010 and thereafter, it came to be circulated before this Court for admission on 30.8.2010 and, therefore, considering these factual aspects of delay, which are not in dispute between the parties, mere ex parte order is not to be passed by Appellate Board as per conditions incorporated in section 95 of the Act, that cannot give right to petitioner to directly approach this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. This aspect has been examined by apex court in case of Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services, UP and others versus Sahngoo Ram Arya and another, 2002 SCC (L&S) 775. Relevant observations made in para 11 and 12 are quoted as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 269 - Full Document
1