Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Levi Strauss & Co. vs Rajesh Agarwal on 3 January, 2018
8. Even this Court, recently in Levis Strauss v. Rajesh
Agarwal [RFA 127/2007 decision dated 3rd January,
2018], held as under: "11. The rationale behind Order
26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is
appointed as a representative of the Court and
evidence collected by the Commissioner along with the
report of the Commissioner would be evidence in the
suit, subject to any objection raised by any party. If any
party has any objection to Commissioner's report or to
the evidence, such party has an option to examine the
Commissioner personally in open Court. Such
examination is however, neither compulsory nor
required especially in cases where the party does not
challenge the report."
Section 36 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
M/S Bawa Sanitation And Another vs Jasmeet Kaur And Anr on 9 January, 2020
18.1 For sake of brevity, the arguments are not reproduced
again. However, relying upon Order XXX Rule 1 and proviso to
TM NO. 89/21
M/s Lacoste S.A. Vs. Sheetal Fabrics Page 18 of 26
Rule 2(iii) of CPC and Bawa Sanitation and Anr Vs. Jasmeet
Kaur and Anr. (supra), as the partnership firm can be sued in its
name, the issue is decided against the defendant.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Jugraj Singh & Anr vs Jaswant Singh & Ors on 16 March, 1970
11. It has been argued by Sh. Amit Chanchal Jha, Ld. Counesl
for the plaintiff that there is no specific denial to the assertions of
the plaintiff. Evasive denials are therefore, deemed admissions. It
has been submitted that through testimony of Sh. Hemat Khosla
(PW-1), the plaintiff has proved registration of its trademarks.
Further, it has been adumbrated that the Ld. Local
Commissioner's report has not been objected to and it constitutes
material evidence that remains unrebutted. With respect to the
AR not being duly authorized to institute the suit, it has been
submitted that stamp duty on the authority-cum-resolution had
been paid and the same anyways, is a curable defect. Thereafter,
referring to Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
(hereinafter, referred to as the 'Stamp Act'), it has been submitted
that since the document was exhibited, the objection now raised
by the defendant is not sustainable. For the perusal of the Court,
the stamped original resolution-cum-authority has been produced
on the last date of hearing. Also, reliance has been placed upon
Jugraj Singh and Anr Vs. Jaswant Singh and Ors.1 to assert the
1 (1970) 2 Supreme Court Cases 386
TM NO. 89/21
M/s Lacoste S.A. Vs. Sheetal Fabrics Page 11 of 26
validity of Resolution-cum-Authority (Ex. PW-2/1).
Lt Foods Limited vs Saraswati Trading Company on 30 January, 2023
19.5 With this, during inspection, the Ld. Local Commissioner
recovered goods from the premises of the defendant and no
objections to the report of the commission came to be filed. It is a
settled proposition of law that the Court can rely upon the report
of the Ld. Local Commissioner which has remained
unchallenged. It has been held in Lt. Foods Limited vs.
TM NO. 89/21
M/s Lacoste S.A. Vs. Sheetal Fabrics Page 20 of 26
Saraswati Trading Company3 as under:
Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. vs Balraj Muttneja & Ors. on 20 February, 2014
14. Considering the report of the Local Commissioner
which has been prepared and the evidence which has
been collected by the Local Commissioner as also the
non-filing of the written statement, this Court is of the
opinion that no ex parte evidence is required in this
matter. This view is supported by the decisions of this
Court in Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj
Muttneja &Ors. [CS (OS) 3466/2012 decided on 20th
February, 2014] and Cross Fit LLC v. RTB Gym and
Fitness Centre [CS(COMM) 543/2021, date of decision
6th September, 2022]"