Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.59 seconds)M/S. Dhodha House vs S.K. Maingi on 15 December, 2005
It is, however, made clear
that while passing the aforesaid order, we have considered
the ratio of the decision of Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi
(2006) 9 SCC 41. So far the other issues are concerned, we
have not considered the merit of the same and the said
issues are left open.
Dabur India Ltd vs K.R. Industries on 16 May, 2008
20. This court's decision in Dabur (supra) has been recently
approved by the Supreme Court (See Dabur India v. KR
Industries 2008 (37) PTC 332 (SC).
Sector Twenty-One Owners Welfare ... vs Air Force Naval Housing Board on 8 January, 1996
23. As far as the contention that the court should only look at
the plaint, while deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11
(or Rule 10) is concerned, this court is bound by the decision of
the Supreme Court in Liverpool and London SP & I Association
(supra) where it was held that the scrutiny can extend to
documents filed along with the plaint, which are deemed to be
part of the suit:
Gold Seal Engineering Product Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Hindustan Manufacturers And Others on 9 September, 1991
In Gold Seal Engineering Products v. Hindustan
Manufacturers, AIR 1992 Bom. 144, ( a decision noticed by the
Supreme Court in Dhodha House, and not disapproved) it was
held that a suit for passing off cannot be filed in Bombay if the
defendants carry on business in Calcutta and that supply of
goods to Delhi was on a commercial basis.
Gupta Brothers Conduit Pipe ... vs Anil Gupta And Anr. on 5 September, 2001
In Gupta Brothers
Conduit Pipe Manufacturing Co. v. Anil Gupta, (2001) 24 PTC
159, this Court held that since neither plaintiff nor the
defendants have offices in Delhi and are not carrying on
business in Delhi, the suit had to be returned due to lack of
jurisdiction.
Haryana Milk Foods Ltd. vs Chambel Dairy Products on 31 May, 2002
Similarly, this court held, in Haryana Milk Foods v.
Chambel Diary Products, (2002) 25 PTC 156 that for the
purposes of ascertaining territorial jurisdiction the entire plaint
has to be taken into consideration. In the case since the plaintiff
could not prove that defendant had a office in Delhi or carries on
business in Delhi, the Court held that it did not have territorial
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.