Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)
Pacs vs Union on 6 September, 2010 cites

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:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 37 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Seth Chand Ratan vs Pandit Durga Prasad (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 28 March, 2003

In the instant case none of the aforesaid situations are present. Therefore, principle laid down in the Ratan's case (supra) applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. If the appellant in this case is allowed to file a writ petition despite the existence of an efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 35 of FEMA this will enable him to defeat the provisions of the Statute which may provide for certain conditions for filing the appeal, like limitation, payment of court fees or deposit of some amount of penalty or fulfillment of some other conditions for entertaining the appeal. (See para 13 at page 408 of the report). It is obvious that a writ court should not encourage the aforesaid trend of by-passing a statutory provision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 85 - G P Mathur - 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