Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 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

Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammedamirabbas ... vs The State Of Madhya Bharat& Others on 26 February, 1960

It is settled legal proposition that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial Tribunal is to approach for redress a superior Tribunal, if there is any, and that order cannot be circumvented by resorting to an application for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relief under Article 32 can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part III of the Constitution and only on the proof of infringement thereof. If by adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the right claimed has been negatived, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable. It is not generally assumed that a judicial decision pronounced by a Court may violate the Fundamental Right of a party. Judicial orders passed by the Court in or in relation to proceeding pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Vide Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi & Ors. Vs. the State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) & Ors. AIR 1960 SC 768; Smt. Ujjam Bai Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1962 SC 1621; and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1967 SC 1)
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - J C Shah - Full Document
1