Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.47 seconds)C. Cunniah And Co. By Partners M. ... vs Balraj And Co. By Partners S. Rajaratnam ... on 4 February, 1959
79. The judgment in C. Cunniah & Co. Vs. Balraj
& Company was followed by a Division Bench of the
Madras High Court in D.C.S. BUREAU VS. UNITED
CONCERN24, .
Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs Anchor Health And Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. on 29 October, 2003
Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetabhai Shah &Anr. [2002 3 SCC 65]; Midas Hygine
Industries v Sudhir Bhatia [2004 3 SCC 90]; Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor
Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. [2003 SCC Online Del 1005]; Marico Limited v.
Mukesh Kumar [2018 SCC Online Del 10823] Cadila Health Care Ltd. V. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2001 5 SCC 73];Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders
[CS Comm No. 10/2019 before Delhi HC]; Britannia Industries v. ITC Limited [FAO
(OS) Comm No. 77/2016, Delhi High Court]; Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. V.
RadicoKhaitan Ltd. [FAO OS 549/2011, Delhi High Court] ; Kuber Khaini Private
Limited v. PrabhoodlalRamratan Das [2000 SC Online Cal 536];
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. And ... vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetabhai Shah &Anr. [2002 3 SCC 65]; Midas Hygine
Industries v Sudhir Bhatia [2004 3 SCC 90]; Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor
Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. [2003 SCC Online Del 1005]; Marico Limited v.
Mukesh Kumar [2018 SCC Online Del 10823] Cadila Health Care Ltd. V. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2001 5 SCC 73];Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders
[CS Comm No. 10/2019 before Delhi HC]; Britannia Industries v. ITC Limited [FAO
(OS) Comm No. 77/2016, Delhi High Court]; Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. V.
RadicoKhaitan Ltd. [FAO OS 549/2011, Delhi High Court] ; Kuber Khaini Private
Limited v. PrabhoodlalRamratan Das [2000 SC Online Cal 536];
Kuber Khaini Pvt. Ltd. vs Prabhoolal Ramratan Das Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 13 December, 2000
Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetabhai Shah &Anr. [2002 3 SCC 65]; Midas Hygine
Industries v Sudhir Bhatia [2004 3 SCC 90]; Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor
Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. [2003 SCC Online Del 1005]; Marico Limited v.
Mukesh Kumar [2018 SCC Online Del 10823] Cadila Health Care Ltd. V. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2001 5 SCC 73];Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders
[CS Comm No. 10/2019 before Delhi HC]; Britannia Industries v. ITC Limited [FAO
(OS) Comm No. 77/2016, Delhi High Court]; Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. V.
RadicoKhaitan Ltd. [FAO OS 549/2011, Delhi High Court] ; Kuber Khaini Private
Limited v. PrabhoodlalRamratan Das [2000 SC Online Cal 536];
R.G Anand vs M/S. Delux Films & Ors on 18 August, 1978
It was also referred to by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in R.G. Anand Vs. Delux Films25 and by
this Court in ASSOCIATED ELECTRONICS VERSUS
M/S. SHARP TOOLS reported in AIR 1991
KARNATAKA 406.
Section 2 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. vs Radico Khaitan Ltd. on 20 December, 2011
(1) CS COMM NO.10/2019 BEFORE
DELHI HC
SURYA FOOD AND AGRO LIMITED
Vs. V. OM TRADERS
(2) FAO (OS) COMM NO.77/2016
BEFORE DELHI HC
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES V. ITC LIMITED
(3) FAO OS 549/2011, Delhi High Court
CARLSBERG INDIA PVT. LTD vs RADICO
KHAITAN LTD.
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
16. In an appeal against exercise of 'discretion'
by the court of first instance, the power of the appellate
court to interfere with the exercise of discretion is
restrictive. Merely because, on facts, the appellate court
would have concluded differently from that of the court
below, that would not, by itself, provide justification for
appellate court to interfere. To justify interference, the
appellant would have to demonstrate that the discretion
has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
19
`
capriciously or perversely or where the court had
ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or
refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against
the exercise of discretion is an appeal on principle. [See
Wander Ltd. & Anr. v. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990
(Supp) SCC 727; Skyline Education Institute (India)
Private Ltd. ((2010) 2 SCC 142]
Marico Limited vs Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. on 27 August, 2018
Lakshmikant V. Patel v. Chetabhai Shah &Anr. [2002 3 SCC 65]; Midas Hygine
Industries v Sudhir Bhatia [2004 3 SCC 90]; Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor
Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. [2003 SCC Online Del 1005]; Marico Limited v.
Mukesh Kumar [2018 SCC Online Del 10823] Cadila Health Care Ltd. V. Cadila
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2001 5 SCC 73];Surya Food and Agro Limited v. Om Traders
[CS Comm No. 10/2019 before Delhi HC]; Britannia Industries v. ITC Limited [FAO
(OS) Comm No. 77/2016, Delhi High Court]; Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. V.
RadicoKhaitan Ltd. [FAO OS 549/2011, Delhi High Court] ; Kuber Khaini Private
Limited v. PrabhoodlalRamratan Das [2000 SC Online Cal 536];