Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs R A Perfumery Works Private Limited on 27 October, 2022 cites

M/S Patil Automation Private Limited vs Rakheja Engineers Private Limited on 17 August, 2022

In Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited (supra), the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are mandatory and failure to comply with the same would entail rejection of the plaint. However, in the present case, the question whether the provisions under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are mandatory or not is not in issue; the point for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are applicable to the suit instituted by the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 85 - Cited by 97 - K Joseph - Full Document

Exphar Sa & Anr vs Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr on 20 February, 2004

In Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Limited: (2004) 3 SCC 688, the Supreme Court observed that when an objection to jurisdiction is raised by way of demurrer and not at the trial, the objection must proceed on the basis that the facts, as pleaded by the initiator of the impugned procedure, are true. The Supreme Court further observed that the objection as to jurisdiction in order to succeed must demonstrate that granted those facts, the Court does not have jurisdiction as a matter of law. It is also a settled proposition of law that while considering a plaint from the standpoint of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, it is only the plaint and the documents filed along with it, that need to be seen. The written statement is not to be looked into at all."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 131 - R Pal - Full Document

Plaintiff) Suit) Anil Gupta vs Babu Ram Singla, Proprietor-Singla ... on 30 September, 2020

36. The order dated 30.09.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Anil Gupta v. Baburam Singla, Proprietor of Singla Sweets and Anr. (supra), is of little assistance to the respondent. The observations made in the said order are not dispositive of any question whether a separate application is required to be made under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The contention that such an application is required to be made on an analogy of Section 80 of the CPC is also Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(COMM) No.128/2021 Page 16 of 19 Signing Date:27.10.2022 2022/DHC/004454 erroneous.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - M Gupta - Full Document

Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs R A Perfumery Works Private Limited on 25 August, 2021

4. The appellant had filed the suit [being CS(COMM) No.132/2021 captioned Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd.] seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of its copyright, trademark, passing off and rendition of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(COMM) No.128/2021 Page 2 of 19 Signing Date:27.10.2022 2022/DHC/004454 accounts amongst other reliefs. The appellant claimed that he is the registered proprietor of the trademarks '1192' and 'JAGMAG 1192'. The said trademarks were registered with the Trade Mark Registry under class 34 bearing registration nos. 2317657 and 2317658 dated 19.04.2012. The appellant also claimed that he holds copyright in the label / packaging, original artistic work, getup, layout and pattern, 'JAGMAG 1192'. And, the same is registered under the Copyright Act, 1957 bearing registration no. A-111868/2014 dated 23.09.2014.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 198 - Manmohan - Full Document
1   2 Next