Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (1.38 seconds)Section 29 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990
75. While we are mindful of the fact that not allowing the
appellants to launch their fans with the mark in which they have
otherwise acquired substantial goodwill for other products, may cause
prejudice to them, it is all of their own doing. We are also to remain
mindful of the limited jurisdiction that we enjoy while testing an order
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. We are not to
substitute the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge except
where we find the same to be perverse or contrary to law. Such a case,
in our opinion, is not made out in the present case. Herein, we may
usefully quote from the landmark judgment of Wander Ltd. (supra) as
under:
Power Control Appliances vs Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd on 8 February, 1994
In support, he places on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whiskey Association &
Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 723 and M/s Power Controls Appliances & Ors.
v. Sumeet Appliances Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448.
Kent Cables Private Limited & Ors. vs Kent Ro Systems Limited & Ors. on 30 May, 2023
In Wander
Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd., 1990
(Supp) SCC 727, the Supreme Court held that
passing off is a species of unfair trade
competition or of actionable unfair trading
and in S. Syed Mohideen (supra) and Neon
Laboratories Limited (supra), the Supreme
Court underscored that rights in passing off
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed FAOs(OS)(Comm) 141/2023 & 142/2023 Page 12 of 38
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:11.03.2026
19:00:12
emanate from the common law and prior users
rights will override those of subsequent user,
even where he would have been accorded
registration of its trademark. It cannot be
overlooked at this stage that Kent RO has
remained dormant for years together with
respect to the user of its mark KENT in fans
and in the interregnum, Kent Cables has
increased its sales considerably. What is the
extent of sales of Kent Cables as well as the
supineness of Kent RO in remaining dormant,
would be a matter of evidence during the trial
of the suit. The balance of convenience lies in
favour of Kent Cables which has developed a
well-established business in manufacture and
sale of fans and has been continuing for over
15 years in irreparable harm and injury while
in the other hand, Ket RO was yet to launch
the fans in 2022 and in any case has its prime
business in purifiers, home appliances etc. and
a restraint on launching fans would not create
any dent in its business at this stage...
Micolube India Ltd. vs Maggon Auto Centre And Anr. on 7 February, 2008
In support, he places reliance on
the decision of this court in Micolube India Ltd. v. Maggon Auto
Centre & Anr., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 160, which was upheld in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed FAOs(OS)(Comm) 141/2023 & 142/2023 Page 18 of 38
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:11.03.2026
19:00:12
Micolube India Ltd. v. Maggon Auto Centre & Anr., (2008) 38 PTC
271 (DB) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Brihan Karan
Sugar Syndicate Private Limited v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna
Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1163.
Mittal Electronics vs Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd. & Ors. on 9 September, 2020
In support, he places reliance on FDC Limited v. Docsuggest
Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6381;
Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas v. Vazir Sultan
Tobacco Co. Ltd., Hyderabad & Anr., (1997) 4 SCC 201; Sona
Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. Soongachi Tea Industries Pvt. Ltd., (2007) 34
PTC 91; Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd.,
(2020) 83 PTC 358 and Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative
Milk Producers Federation Ltd., (2018) 9 SCC 183.
Dr. Reddy???S Laboratory Ltd. vs Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on 13 September, 2013
In support, he
places reliance on Indian Hotels Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Jiva
Institute of Vedic Science Culture, (2008) 37 PTC 468 (DB); Pankaj
Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., (2008) 38 PTC 49 (DB); Dr. Reddy
Laboratories v. Reddy Pharmaceuticals, (2004) 29 PTC 435; M/s
Power Control Appliances & Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Private
Limited, (1994) 2 SCC 448; Social Work and Research Centre v.
Barefoot College International, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1343;
Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.,
(2018) 18 SCC 346 and V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v. Rajesh
Kejriwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 726.
Wockhardt Limited vs Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited on 12 September, 2018
In support, he
places reliance on Indian Hotels Company Ltd. & Anr. v. Jiva
Institute of Vedic Science Culture, (2008) 37 PTC 468 (DB); Pankaj
Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., (2008) 38 PTC 49 (DB); Dr. Reddy
Laboratories v. Reddy Pharmaceuticals, (2004) 29 PTC 435; M/s
Power Control Appliances & Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Private
Limited, (1994) 2 SCC 448; Social Work and Research Centre v.
Barefoot College International, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1343;
Wockhardt Limited v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.,
(2018) 18 SCC 346 and V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v. Rajesh
Kejriwal, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 726.