Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.29 seconds)Section 3 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Ms Aman Engineering Works vs Registrar Trade Marks Trade Marks ... on 4 November, 2022
7.4 Provisions of 2002 Rules qua filing of evidence have been held to be
mandatory by Coordinate Benches of this Court in Sunrider Corporation,
USA v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr.2 and Aman Engineering Works v.
Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.3 Therefore, the judgments relied upon
by the Appellant to contend that the said provisions are directory, are not
applicable.
Hastimal Jain Trading As Oswal ... vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. on 8 December, 1999
10. As delineated in the afore-mentioned comparison, the Trade and
Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (referred to as "1959 Rules" hereinafter)
did not instate any rigid timelines under Rule 54 that would impinge upon
the Registrar's discretionary power to admit requests for evidence beyond
the prescribed period. Rule 53 (evidence in support of opposition) of the
1959 Rules was classified as directory, rather than mandatory, by a Full
Bench of this Court in Hastimal Jain Trading as Oswal Industries v.
Registrar of Trade Marks.4 This conclusion was premised on a thorough
examination of the structure and provisions of the Trade and Merchandise
Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "1958 Act") and the 1959 Rules, wherein it
was discerned that the Registrar was accorded the discretion to extend
timelines for filing evidence under various provisions of the 1958 Act and
the 1959 Rules, as the 1958 Act did not itself lay down specific timelines for
the said purpose.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994
In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra,5 the law on
5
(1994) 4 SCC 602.
Securities And Exchange Board Of India vs Classic Credit Ltd. on 21 August, 2017
In
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Supra), the Supreme Court has
held that law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature,
whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal is substantive in
6
(2018) 13 SCC 1.
Topline Shoes Ltd vs Corporation Bank on 8 July, 2002
In Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank,7 the Supreme Court
observed that the timelines prescribed for filing replies under the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 are procedural in nature, and such provisions are
merely meant to expedite hearing of such matters and to avoid unnecessary
adjournments during the proceedings.
Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 April, 2011
In Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India,8 the Supreme Court
explained that the procedural law establishes a mechanism for determining
the rights and liabilities of the parties and machinery for enforcing them by
holding that "(r)ight of appeal may be a substantive right but the procedure
for filing the appeal including the period of limitation cannot be called a
substantive right, and aggrieved person cannot claim any vested right
claiming that he should be governed by the old provision pertaining to
period of limitation."
Anant Gopal Sheorey vs The State Of Bombay on 22 May, 1958
In Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay,9 the Supreme Court
quoted Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes and held as under: