Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)The Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 18 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Workmen Of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Meenakshi Mills Ltd. And Anr. Etc. Etc on 15 May, 1992
12. The Supreme Court, in Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. (supra),
held that the power of the appropriate government under Section 25-N(2) of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to grant or refuse permission for
retrenchment to be not purely administrative in character but partaking
exercise of a function which is judicial in nature owing to the exercise of the
said power envisaging passing of a speaking order on an objective
consideration of relevant facts after affording an opportunity to the
concerned parties.
Section 19 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Jt.Action Commit.Of Airlines ... vs Director General Of Civil Aviation & Ors on 3 May, 2011
19. Howsoever bona fide the reasons which prevailed with the Controller
W.P.(C) No.3679/2014 Page 13 of 15
General in issuing the impugned directive, the same would still fall in the
teeth of what the Supreme Court in Joint Action Committee of Airlines
Pilots Associations of India (supra) has reiterated, cannot be done. The
directive is clearly an attempt by the Controller General to influence the
decision which the Registrar alone under the Act is entitled to take. As far as
the reason of uniformity in orders is concerned, the same can be ensured by
applying the doctrine of stare decisis and not in the manner sought to be
done. Even if the reason for the directive, were to be of expediency, to
expedite the process of registration, the same can still not justify the same.
In fact, we have during the hearing enquired from the counsel for the
respondents, whether the Chief Justice of a High Court can issue a general
direction to all Judges as to what kinds of amendment to pleadings which
should be allowed and what should not be allowed. To be fair to the counsel
for the respondents, he did not contend that the same would be permissible.
The order of the Controller General stands on a similar footing and cannot
also stand. The Registrar of Trademarks has to, on case to case basis, decide
whether the amendment claimed, even if to prepone the date of
commencement of use of trademark sought to be registered, is as an
afterthought, to meet the objection filed to registration and thus in abuse of
W.P.(C) No.3679/2014 Page 14 of 15
the procedure for amendment or bona fide and there can be no general order
that no such amendment shall be allowed.