Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.53 seconds)
Uto Nederland V vs Tilaknagar Industries Ltd on 28 April, 2025 cites

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

17. It is thus clear that the concept of discretion is distinct from that of adjudication. What the learned Single Judge has done in the instant case is making prima facie adjudication that the defendants' trademark is not deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no question of any discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge. We have already held that the defendant has been infringing the plaintiff's trademarks and has been attempting to pass off its playing cards as those of the plaintiff. This has happened in respect of the very trademark "MERELANE, which is registered since the year 1971 and also the label mark on the packets containing the playing cards prominently bearing the words "MERELANE No. 7". Hence, there is no question of applying the principle enunciated in the case of Wander Limited v. Antox India (P) Limited.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs Anchor Health And Beauty Care Private ... on 15 October, 2004

"Q.1 Which of the decisions rendered in Colgate Palmolive Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding that an order passed on the application for temporary injunction does not cease to be an order passed in discretion merely because the Trial Judge does not find any prima facie case or the decision in Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (supra) and Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), where it has been held that the order passed on the application for temporary injunction is prima facie adjudication and not an exercise of discretion sets out the correct law?
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Shyam Sel And Power Limited vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited on 14 March, 2022

(ii) The scope and ambit of an appeal from an order passed by the trial Judge has already been delineated by the Supreme Court in WANDER LTD. (SUPRA), SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED (SUPRA) and RAMAKANT AMBALAL CHOKSI (SUPRA). In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by Supreme Court, it is evident that the appellate court will not interfere with exercise of discretion of Court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. The Appellate Court while deciding an appeal, has to examine whether the discretion exercised is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to the principles of law and the appellate Court may, in a given case, has to adjudicate on facts even in such discretionary orders.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 66 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Dalpat Kumar And Anr. vs Prahlad Singh And Ors. on 16 December, 1991

25. Another Division Bench judgment of this Court in COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY (SUPRA), while placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in DALPAT KUMAR AND ANR VS. PRAHLAD SINGH AND ORS., 18 held that grant of injunction is discretionary relief and held that the decisions rendered by Division Benches of this Court in HIRALAL 18 1992(1) SCC 719 Basavraj Page | 19 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:18:34 ::: 66.12-appeal.docx PARBHUDAS (SUPRA) and M/S. NATIONAL CHEMICALS AND COLOUR CO. (SUPRA) have no relevance to an appeal arising out an order under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC. In paragraph 10, it was held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 516 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd vs Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad on 21 March, 2012

"Q.1 Which of the decisions rendered in Colgate Palmolive Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding that an order passed on the application for temporary injunction does not cease to be an order passed in discretion merely because the Trial Judge does not find any prima facie case or the decision in Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (supra) and Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), where it has been held that the order passed on the application for temporary injunction is prima facie adjudication and not an exercise of discretion sets out the correct law?
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - M S Shah - Full Document

Goldmines Telefilms Pvt.Ltd vs Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt.Ltd on 24 September, 2014

"Q.1 Which of the decisions rendered in Colgate Palmolive Vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (supra) holding that an order passed on the application for temporary injunction does not cease to be an order passed in discretion merely because the Trial Judge does not find any prima facie case or the decision in Parksons Cartamundi Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Suresh Kumar Jasraj Burad (supra) and Goldmines Telefilms Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra), where it has been held that the order passed on the application for temporary injunction is prima facie adjudication and not an exercise of discretion sets out the correct law?
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next