Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.79 seconds)Relaxo Rubber Limited & Anr. vs Selection Footwear & Anr. on 18 August, 1999
In this behalf, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Relaxo Rubber Limited and Anr. v. Selection Footwear and Anr. 1999 PTC (19) 578, Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Appliances 1999 PTC (19) 685 and CS (OS) 2711/1999 Page 2389 L.T. Overseas Ltd. v. Guruji Trading Co. and Anr. decided on 7.9.2003. In all these cases, damages of Rs.3 lakhs were awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
Hindustan Machines vs Royal Electrical Appliances on 23 September, 1999
In this behalf, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Relaxo Rubber Limited and Anr. v. Selection Footwear and Anr. 1999 PTC (19) 578, Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Appliances 1999 PTC (19) 685 and CS (OS) 2711/1999 Page 2389 L.T. Overseas Ltd. v. Guruji Trading Co. and Anr. decided on 7.9.2003. In all these cases, damages of Rs.3 lakhs were awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
L.T. Overseas Ltd. vs Guruji Trading Co. And Anr. on 7 September, 2005
In this behalf, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Relaxo Rubber Limited and Anr. v. Selection Footwear and Anr. 1999 PTC (19) 578, Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Appliances 1999 PTC (19) 685 and CS (OS) 2711/1999 Page 2389 L.T. Overseas Ltd. v. Guruji Trading Co. and Anr. decided on 7.9.2003. In all these cases, damages of Rs.3 lakhs were awarded in favor of the plaintiff.
Time Incorporated vs Lokesh Srivastava And Anr. on 3 January, 2005
In Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr. 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del) apart from compensatory damages even punitive damages were awarded to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Shree Assuramji Scooters on 29 November, 2005
In a recent judgment in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters 125 (2005) DLT 504 this Court has taken the view that damages in such a case should be awarded against defendants who chose to stay away from proceedings of the court and they should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of court proceedings. The rationale for the same is that while defendants who appeared in court may be burdened with damages while defendants who chose to stay away from the court would escape such damages. The actions of the defendants result in affecting the reputation of the plaintiff and every endeavor should be made for a larger public purpose to discourage such parties from indulging in acts of deception.
Microsoft Corporation vs Deepak Raval on 16 June, 2006
In CS(OS) No. 529/2003, Microsoft Corporation v. Deepak Raval, decided on 16-06-2006, the court held that the justification for award of compensatory damages is to make up for the loss suffered by the plaintiff and the rationale behind granting punitive damages is to deter a wrong doer and the like-minded from indulging in such unlawful activities. This is more so when an action has criminal propensity. Thus, while awarding punitive damages Courts have taken into consideration the conduct of the defendants which has "willfully calculated to exploit the advantage of an established mark" (expression used by US Courts), which may also be termed as "flagrancy of the defendant's conduct" (test adopted by Australian Courts). The English Courts have, adopting the same nature of test, have used the test of "dishonest trader", who deals in products knowing that they are counterfeit or "recklessly indifferent" as to whether or not they are.