Search Results Page
Search Results
11 - 20 of 31 (0.23 seconds)Section 8 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Punjab Courts Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
Section 44A in The Punjab Courts Act, 1918 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr. on 18 May, 2023
2. When we heard the matter on 10 July 2023, we took note of the
preliminary objection which was raised at the behest of respondent no.
1 relating to the maintainability of the present LPA itself. Admittedly,
the question of maintainability of an LPA against a judgement
rendered by a learned Judge of the Court on a petition under Section
57 of the TMA had directly fallen for consideration before a
Coordinate Bench of the Court in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.
Phonepe Private Limited & Anr.3 and came to be answered in the
affirmative.
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Messer Greisheim Gmbh (Now Called Air ... vs Goyal Mg Gases Private Limited on 28 January, 2022
35. For the purposes of elucidating the nature of the ordinary
original civil jurisdiction which stands bestowed upon this High
Court, we deem it apposite to refer to the following passages from the
decision of the Supreme Court in Grieshim GMBH Vs. Goyal MG
Gases Private Limited8. The Supreme Court in Grieshim was
considering the meaning to be ascribed to the phrase "District Court"
Raja Soap Factory And Others vs S. P. Shantharaj And Others on 20 January, 1965
36. Of greater significance is the decision of the Supreme Court in
Raja Soap Factory Vs. S.P. Shantaraj & others9. The issue which
arose there was whether the High Court of Mysore would have the
jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 105 of the Trade and
Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in the absence of it being enabled to
exercise original jurisdiction and thus not falling within the meaning
of a District Court as defined by that statute. It becomes pertinent to
note that the aforesaid enactment provided that the expression
"District Court" would have the same meaning as assigned to that
phrase under the Code. Dealing with the aforesaid question, the
Supreme Court pertinently observed as follows:-