Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.41 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 35 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
M/S. National Chemicals And Colour Co. ... vs Reckitt And Colman Of India Limited And ... on 12 April, 1990
From the principles laid down in the cases referred in the
judgment above, it is clear that the mark SHRI RAM is being used as
essential feature in their logos and the same are deceptively similar.
A. C. Jose vs Sivan Pillai & Ors on 5 March, 1984
When one is concerned with the
statutory right or constitutional guarantee, there cannot be any
CS (OS) No.1980/2014 Page 37 of 62
estoppel against the same as held in the case of A.C. Jose Vs Sivan
Pillai & Ors, (1984) 3 SCR 74.
Union Of India And Ors vs Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & Ors on 17 February, 2004
This proposition has been laid down in the case of Union of
India And Ors. vs Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi & Ors, (2004) 3
SCC 628 wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:
Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Another on 10 December, 1982
"In our view the concession, if any, is really of no
consequence, because the wrong concession made by a
counsel cannot bind the parties when statutory
provisions clearly provided otherwise. It was observed
by Constitution Bench of this court Sanjeev Coke
Manufacturing Co v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (1983 (1)
SCC 147) that courts are not to act on the basis of
concession but with reference to the applicable
provisions.
The Central Council For Research In ... vs Dr. K. Santhakumari on 4 May, 2001
The view has been reiterated in (1988 (6)
SCC 538) and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda
and Sidhha & others versus Dr. K Santhakumari (2001
(5) SCC 60).
Uptron India Limited vs Shammi Bhan & Anr on 6 February, 1998
45. Again in Uptron India Ltd vs. Shammi Bhan and Anr. 1998
(6) SCC 538, the court also explained the said principle as one of
species of the principle that there cannot be any estoppel against
the statute. It was held that a case decided on the basis of wrong
concession of a counsel has no precedent value. That apart, the
applicability of the statute or otherwise to a given situation or the
question of statutory liability of a person/institution under any
provision of law would invariably depend upon the scope and
meaning of the provisions concerned and has got to be adjudged
not on any concession made. Any such concessions would have no
acceptability or relevance while determining rights and liabilities
incurred or acquired in view of the axiomatic principle, without
exception, that there can be no estoppel against statute.
B.K. Engineering Co. vs Ubhi Enterprises (Registered) And Anr. on 12 November, 1984
iii) In the case of B.K. Engineering Co. (supra) the defendant
was restrained from using the mark BK being an abbreviation
of their deceased mother's name Balwant Kaur.