Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.03 seconds)
M/S Guruji Enterprises Private Limited vs M/S K.K. Food Products (India) on 24 January, 2015 cites

Parle Products (P) Ltd vs J. P. & Co. Mysore on 28 January, 1972

9.7 The Copyright of defendant is prior in date and it is the Defendant who shall be suing the Plaintiff for his Copyright violation. It is further argued that the plaintiff has not pleaded passing of as his grievance against the defendant for which plaintiff is taking relief and relied upon case law titled Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P. And Co., Mysore (172) 1 SCC 618.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 293 - Full Document

Hari Narain vs Badri Das on 4 March, 1963

9.0 Repelling aforesaid contentions, Ld counsel for defendant argued that it is settled law that a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled for any relief from the Court and relied upon cases titled Hari Narain v. Badri Das, [1964] 2 SCR 203, Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi Vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, [1964] 3 SCR 480, Udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and Ors. [1978] 2 SCC 209, Vijay Syal and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [2003] 9 SCC 401, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs.Vs.Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, [1994] 1 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 166 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi vs Vasudev Dhanjlbhai Mody on 1 May, 1963

9.0 Repelling aforesaid contentions, Ld counsel for defendant argued that it is settled law that a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled for any relief from the Court and relied upon cases titled Hari Narain v. Badri Das, [1964] 2 SCR 203, Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi Vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, [1964] 3 SCR 480, Udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and Ors. [1978] 2 SCC 209, Vijay Syal and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [2003] 9 SCC 401, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs.Vs.Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, [1994] 1 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 53 - J C Shah - Full Document

Udai Chand vs Shanker Lal & Others on 7 February, 1978

9.0 Repelling aforesaid contentions, Ld counsel for defendant argued that it is settled law that a litigant who does not approach the Court with clean hands is not entitled for any relief from the Court and relied upon cases titled Hari Narain v. Badri Das, [1964] 2 SCR 203, Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi Vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, [1964] 3 SCR 480, Udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and Ors. [1978] 2 SCC 209, Vijay Syal and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. [2003] 9 SCC 401, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs.Vs.Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, [1994] 1 SCC 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 52 - M H Beg - Full Document

Ram Prasad vs Hari Narain And Ors. on 1 August, 1997

The argument that the plaintiff has nowhere in his plaint sought relief for passing off is without substance as the plaintiff in para under the titled of suit as well as in para no. 18, 20 and 25 has specifically averred about the passing off. It is further argued that Sh. Kaushal Kishore Mittal is the sole proprietor of defendant firm and he has never turned up in the witness box nor tendered evidence by way of affidavit. The defendant in its defence examined Sh. Subhash Chand as defence witness DW1 who was not authorised on behalf of defendant Sh. Kaushal Kishore as no authority letter has been exhibited and proved authorising Sh. Subhash Chand to lead evidence and depose to the facts by way of affidavit on behalf of defendant. There is no power of attorney in favour of Sh. Subhash Chand which has been exhibited and proved in the present proceedings and while relying upon case law titled Ram Prasad Vs. Hari Narayan ARI 1998 Rajasthan 185 argued that the evidence of defence witness cannot be looked into.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 5 - Cited by 172 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next