Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)
Sunrider Corporation vs Hindustan Lever Limited And Anr. on 27 July, 2007 cites

Pranam Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax And Ors. on 21 May, 2004

9. The decisions referred to in the cases of Delta Impex (supra), Pranam Enterprises (supra) and Popular Construction (supra) all clearly indicate that where the statute itself prescribes a maximum condonable period, then it would not be open to the authorities under that statute to extend the period for doing an act beyond the prescribed maximum condonable period. It is, therefore, clear that the Registrar does not have any power to extend the time for filing the evidence affidavit beyond the maximum period of one month after the initial period of two months.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Union Of India vs Popular Construction Co on 5 October, 2001

9. The decisions referred to in the cases of Delta Impex (supra), Pranam Enterprises (supra) and Popular Construction (supra) all clearly indicate that where the statute itself prescribes a maximum condonable period, then it would not be open to the authorities under that statute to extend the period for doing an act beyond the prescribed maximum condonable period. It is, therefore, clear that the Registrar does not have any power to extend the time for filing the evidence affidavit beyond the maximum period of one month after the initial period of two months.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 678 - R Pal - Full Document

Hastimal Jain Trading As Oswal ... vs Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. on 8 December, 1999

5. On the other hand, Mr Mahabir, who appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1, submitted that Section 131 of the 1999 Act read with Rule 105 of the 2002 Rules empowered the Registrar to extend time. He also placed strong reliance on a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Hastimal Jain Trading as Oswal Industries v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. 2000 PTC 24 (FB).
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 33 - S N Variava - Full Document

Asian Paints Limited vs The Assistant Registrar Of Trade Marks ... on 10 February, 2005

3. On 20.02.2004, the Assistant Registrar passed an order invoking the provisions of Rule 50 (2) and held that since the evidence affidavit was Page 2115 not filed by the respondent No. 1 within the prescribed time, the opposition was deemed to have been abandoned. Being aggrieved by this order, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by a judgment and / or order dated 11.03.2005 and the order dated 22.03.2004 passed by the Assistant Registrar was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Registrar for giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 1 as well as the petitioner and thereafter to pass the orders. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board passed the said order dated 11.03.2005 in view of its order passed in the case of Asian Paints Ltd v. Assistant Registrar and Anr. in OA/108/2004 wherein the said Appellate Board was of the view that the Registrar was competent to grant extension of time for filing the evidence affidavit in opposition even beyond the period indicated in Rule 50. While disposing of the appeal, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board observed as under:
Intellectual Property Appellate Board Cites 11 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next