Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.32 seconds)
Bolt Technology Ou vs Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr. on 29 August, 2022 cites

N.R. Dongre And Ors vs Whirlpool Corporation And Anr on 30 August, 1996

17. We are conscious of the law that this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction by the High Court and the Trial Court and substitute its own discretion therefor except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the order of the Courts under scrutiny ignores the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not CS (COMM) 582/2022 Page 14 of 24 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:30.08.2022 15:25:19 reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion [(see Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and N.R. Dongre v. Whirpool Corpn.]. However, the present one is a case falling within the well-accepted exceptions. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court have kept in view and applied their mind to the relevant settled principles of law governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction in trade mark and trade name disputes. A refusal to grant an injunction in spite of the availability of facts, which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and material available on record justifying the grant thereof, occasion a failure of justice and such injury to the plaintiff as would not be capable of being undone at a latter stage. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court and the High Court against the plaintiff, is neither reasonable nor judicious. The grant of interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff could not have been refused, therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of this Court to interfere."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 347 - Full Document
1   2 Next