Autodesk, Inc. & Another vs Mr. Prashant Deshmukh & Others on 9 March, 2011
Inc & Anr. vs. Mr. Prashant
Deshmukh & Ors., 183(2011) DLT 411 and the following was
given:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.78 seconds)Time Incorporated vs Lokesh Srivastava And Anr. on 3 January, 2005
"Regarding punitive damages in the case of Time
Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr., 2005
(30) PTC 3 (Del), this Court observed that punitive
damages are founded on the philosophy of
corrective justice and as such, in appropriate
cases these must be awarded to give a signal to the
CS(OS) 1092 of 2012 16 | P a g e
wrong doers that the law does not take a breach
merely as a matter between rival parties but feels
concerned about those also who are not party to
the lis but suffer on account of the breach.
Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Shree Assuramji Scooters on 29 November, 2005
In the
case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree
Assuramji Scooters, 2006 (32) PTC 117 (Del), this
Court noticing that the defendant had chosen to
stay away from the proceedings of the Court felt
that in such case punitive damages need to be
awarded, since otherwise the defendant, who
appears in the Court and submits its account books
would be liable for damages whereas a party
which chooses to stay away from the Court
proceedings would escape the liability on account
of the failure of the availability of account books.
Microsoft Corporation vs Deepak Raval on 16 June, 2006
In Microsoft Corporation v. Deepak Raval MIPR
2007 (1) 72, this Court observed that in our
country the Courts are becoming sensitive to the
growing menace of piracy and have started
granting punitive damages even in cases where
due to absence of defendant, the exact figures of
sale made by them under the infringing copyright
and/or trademark, exact damages are not
available. The justification given by the Court for
award of compulsory damages was to make up for
the loss suffered by the plaintiff and deter a wrong
doer and like-minded from indulging in such
unlawful activities.
Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Chagan Bhai Patel on 9 January, 2009
In Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Chagan Bhai
Patel MIPR 2009 (1) 194, this Court observed that
it would be encouraging the violators of
intellectual property, if the defendants
notwithstanding having not contested the suit are
not burdened with punitive damages.
Section 134 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 135 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Section 51 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
1