Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.04 seconds)Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Exphar Sa & Anr vs Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr on 20 February, 2004
21. As regards the order referred by the learned counsel for defendant
passed in Suit No.29/2009, with great respect, this court is unable to
agree with the finding of the said order in view of the settled law by the
Apex Court in Exphar S.A. (supra) which has not been considered in the
said order and this court is bound by the judgment passed by the Supreme
Court as the observations made in the order are contrary to the decision
made by the Apex Court in Suit No.29/2009.
The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958
Section 62 in The Copyright Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Copyright Act, 1957
The Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs Mahavir Steels And Ors. on 25 February, 1992
In the case of Tata Iron and
Steel Company Private Limited (supra), it was held that the question
regarding jurisdiction can only be looked into only after the evidence of
the parties has been recorded.
Pfizer Products Inc. vs Rajesh Chopra And Ors. on 31 May, 2007
18. This aspect has been decided by Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed in
Pfizer Products Inc. Vs Rajesh Chopra & Ors, 2006(32) PTC
301(Delhi) wherein it was observed as under :-
Lg Corporation And Anr. vs Intermarket Electroplasters (P) Ltd. ... on 13 February, 2006
In LG Corporation & Anr. Vs Intermarket Electroplasters(P)
Ltd. and Anr.; 2006 (32) PTC 429, the following observations were
made in para 7 :-
Laxman Prasad vs Prodigy Electronics Ltd. & Anr on 10 December, 2007
A similar enunciation
of the law is to be found in Laxman Prasad v. Prodigy
Electronics Ltd. MANU/SC/4571/2007:2008 (37) PTC 209
(SC). A reading of Laxman Prasad will unquestionably
disclose that the Intas opinion now has the imprimatur of the
Supreme Court.