Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.68 seconds)Section 28 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
Dashrath B. Rathod And 2 Ors vs Fox Star Studios India Private Ltd And 4 ... on 21 March, 2017
Also, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit the conduct of the
Plaintiff which I have already noted above, is also a relevant factor when
considering the aspect of costs. Additionally, since the present Suit is a
Commercial Suit, the question of costs is to be considered in light of
Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which would also necessitate the conduct
of the Plaintiff to be taken into account. This position has been recognised
in Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd. , and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios
India Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff has also given an undertaking in terms of Rule
126(ix)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to pay
damages or costs as may be directed by the Court, should the Defendants
suffer any prejudice by reason of such interim order. Thus the Plaintiff
was therefore fully aware of the consequences that would ensue in the
event of any prejudice being caused to the Defendants by the grant of
such ex parte relief. The Defendants have set out that their entire business
has come to a standstill by virtue of the ex parte ad interim Order, and
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also on Affidavit setting out the sales figures
duly certified by a chartered accountant for the month of June 2025, i.e.,
Meera Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2025 00:27:15 :::
53/53 iaL-18278-25.doc
the month prior to the passing of the ex parte Order. Hence an Order of
costs must follow.
Ramjas Foundation & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010
I. Ninth, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ramjas Foundation v.
Union of India, has held that every Court is not only entitled but is duty
bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any
respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting
to falsehood or by making misstatements or by suppressing facts which
have a bearing on the adjudication of the issues arising in the case. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also, in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd., held
that suppression of material facts by a litigant justifies outright dismissal
of proceedings. Both this Court in the case of Nagina Ramsagar Choube
and the Delhi High Court in the case of Om Prakash Gupta have, at the
interlocutory stage itself, dismissed suits on finding that the Plaintiff had
suppressed material facts.
Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S Sai Trading Company vs M/S Krbl Limited on 30 October, 2023
Also, since the present Suit is a Commercial Suit the conduct of the
Plaintiff which I have already noted above, is also a relevant factor when
considering the aspect of costs. Additionally, since the present Suit is a
Commercial Suit, the question of costs is to be considered in light of
Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which would also necessitate the conduct
of the Plaintiff to be taken into account. This position has been recognised
in Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd. , and Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios
India Pvt. Ltd. The Plaintiff has also given an undertaking in terms of Rule
126(ix)(a) of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980, to pay
damages or costs as may be directed by the Court, should the Defendants
suffer any prejudice by reason of such interim order. Thus the Plaintiff
was therefore fully aware of the consequences that would ensue in the
event of any prejudice being caused to the Defendants by the grant of
such ex parte relief. The Defendants have set out that their entire business
has come to a standstill by virtue of the ex parte ad interim Order, and
Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have also on Affidavit setting out the sales figures
duly certified by a chartered accountant for the month of June 2025, i.e.,
Meera Jadhav
::: Uploaded on - 17/10/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/10/2025 00:27:15 :::
53/53 iaL-18278-25.doc
the month prior to the passing of the ex parte Order. Hence an Order of
costs must follow.