Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.66 seconds)Patel Narshi Thakershi And Ors. vs Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji on 2 March, 1970
9. The decision in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji is an authority for the proposition that the power of review is not an inherent power, it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication.
B.Mohamed Yousuff vs M/S.Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh on 27 October, 2006
6. Shri Ajay K. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the object of Section 124 of the Act is to stay civil proceedings. In case of non-compliance of Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act, then the infringement proceedings would not be stayed. There is no provision for permission to be taken for filing the rectification application. In short it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the review petitioner that the scope of Section 124 is only for the purpose of stay of the suit if any of the party, i.e. the plaintiff or the defendant wants to make a prayer and in case the rectification is filed subsequent to the suit the said party has to satisfy the Court regarding the validity of the trade mark and in case the Court is satisfied that the grounds mentioned in the rectification are tenable then the suit proceedings will be stayed otherwise not. There is no provision or averment, it is contended, in Section 124 that it is mandatory for a party to take permission from the Court to file the rectification if the said party does not wish to make the prayer for stay of the suit. It was, therefore, urged that the order passed by this Board is not sustainable and is liable to be reviewed. The MP filed by the respondent ought to have been dismissed, contended learned Counsel. Shri A.K. Gupta learned Counsel also referred us to a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Md. Yousuff v. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh (unreported) which has taken a view contrary to the Gujarat and Delhi High Court Division Bench judgments cited supra and followed in the order under review.
Indian Bank vs M/S Satyam Fibres (India} Pvt.Ltd on 9 August, 1996
7. Shri Ajay K. Gupta relied upon the judgment in Om Prakash Gupta v. Praveen Kumar 2000 PTC 326, more particularly to the passage extracted therein from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) JT 1996 (7) SC 135, which was a case for review of judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereby it had passed a money decree. Review was sought on the ground that the judgment was obtained on the basis of a letter which was forged. The Commission did not take notice of this plea. The Supreme Court observed that:
Grindlays Bank Ltd vs Central Government Industrial ... on 12 December, 1980
The expression, 'review', it was held by the Supreme Court, in the above case is used in two distinct senses, namely "(1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a Court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record".
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs P.M. Diesels Ltd. on 25 November, 1998
In our order dated 22.6.2007, review of which has been prayed for, reliance was placed upon Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. 1999 PTC (19) 718 (Guj) and the Single Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Astrazeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 2006 (32) PTC 733 (Del), confirmed by the Division Bench in the report 2007 (34) PTC 469.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Astrazeneca Uk Ltd. And Anr. vs Orchid Chemicals And Pharmaceuticals ... on 16 May, 2006
In our order dated 22.6.2007, review of which has been prayed for, reliance was placed upon Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. 1999 PTC (19) 718 (Guj) and the Single Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Astrazeneca UK Ltd. v. Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 2006 (32) PTC 733 (Del), confirmed by the Division Bench in the report 2007 (34) PTC 469.
1