Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.43 seconds)Section 209 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Badat And Co vs East India Trading Co on 10 May, 1963
"11. The object of this provision is to narrow the issues to be tried in
the case and to enable either party to know what the real point is to be
discussed and decided. The word "specifically" qualifies not only the
word "deny" but also the words "stated to be not admitted" and
therefore a refusal to admit must also be specifically stated. A
defendant can admit or deny the several allegations made in the plaint
and if he decides to deny any such allegations, he must do so clearly
and explicitly. A vague or evasive reply by the defendant cannot be
CS (COMM) 235/2018 Page 14 of 30
considered to be a denial of fact alleged by the plaintiff. A party is
expected to expressly deny the fact which is within its knowledge and
a general denial is not a specific denial by "necessary implication". In
other words, the denial should be definite and unambiguous. The
scope of this provision has been considered in Badat & Co. v. East
India Trading Co. , where His Lordship Subba Rao, J. AIR 1964 SC
538 after referring to Rules 3, 4 and 5 of Order 8 of the Code has
observed :-
Aktiebolaget Volvo Of Sweden vs Volvo Steels Ltd. Of Gujarat (India) on 16 October, 1997
149; Revlon Inc. v.
Sarita Manufacturing Co., 1997 (17) PTC 394; Aktiebolaget Volvo of
Sweden v. Volvo Steels Ltd. of Gujarat (India), 1998 (18) PTC 156; Ansul
Tobacco Industries v. Shiva Tobacco Company, 2007 (34) PTC 392; and
Hamdard National Foundation v. Abdul Jalil, 2008 (38) PTC 109.
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha vs M/S. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills on 25 February, 2009
19. A trade mark which has acquired a wide reputation transcending
international barriers even though in respect of a specified class or category
of goods cannot be allowed to be violated by another person in respect of a
different category of goods because that other person will be deliberately
using the trade mark of the former with an intent to get some undue
advantage because of its reputation and goodwill. Reliance is placed on
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Mahaluxmi Textile Mills, 2009 (41) PTC 184
(Cal) (FB).
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
20. An injunction is necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption
of the trade mark was itself dishonest and even delay in bringing action is
not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction. Reliance is placed on Midas
Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90.
The Timken Company vs Timken Services Private Ltd. on 30 May, 2013
63. The defendant, a fraudulent infringer who has knowingly and
deliberately violated the rights of the plaintiff, cannot complain and hide
behind the defence of delay, laches or acquiescence as the infringement at
the very initial stage itself was fraudulent. The delay and laches by itself
would not bestow fraud with character of legality. Reference be made to the
CS (COMM) 235/2018 Page 23 of 30
Timken Company (supra), Hindustan Pencils Private Limited v. India
Stationery Products Co., AIR 1990 Del 19, Kirloskar Diesel Recon Pvt.
Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Limited, AIR 1996 Bom.
B.K. Engineering Co. vs Ubhi Enterprises (Registered) And Anr. on 12 November, 1984
23. A fair and honest trader will not give a misleading name to his
product to the continuing detriment of the plaintiff who has built up his
goodwill in the business after years of hard work. It is this intangible right
to property which the law seeks to protect. Reliance is placed on B.K.
Engineering Co. v. Ubhi Enterprises, ILR (1985) 1 Delhi 525.
Honda Motors Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Charanjit Singh And Ors. on 28 November, 2002
25. With the changed concept of passing off action, it is now not material
for a passing off action that the plaintiff and the defendant should trade in
the same field. Reliance is placed on Honda Motors Company Ltd. v.
Charanjit Singh, 2003 (26) PTC 1 (Del).
Laxmikant V.Patel vs Chetanbhat Shah & Anr on 4 December, 2001
26. An injunction has to be granted where there is possibility of confusion
even if the defendant adopted the name innocently. Reliance is placed on
Laxmikant v. Patel Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65.