Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.57 seconds)
Shri Harish Motichand Sariya, Karta And ... vs Ajanta India Limited And Ajanta ... on 9 April, 2003
cites
The Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940
Indian Bank vs Maharasthra State Co-Operative ... on 5 May, 1998
In Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd., , the question arose whether Section 10 of the Code is applicable only to a regular and ordinary suit and not to a summary suit filed under Order 37 of the Code. A learned Single Judge of this Court held that Section 10 has no application to a summary suit. The Division Bench reversed the order of the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that the word "trial" in its widest sense will include all proceedings right from the stage of institution of a plaint in a civil case to the stage of final determination by a judgment and decree of the Court. Their Lordships observed that whether the widest meaning should be given to the word "trial" or that it should be construed narrowly must necessarily depend upon the nature and object of the provision and the context in which it is used. While deciding the question, the Supreme Court made the following observations:
Senaji Kapurchand vs Pannaji Devichand on 31 August, 1931
The judgment of the Supreme Court clearly concludes the issue. A Division Bench of this Court in Senaji Kapurchand and Ors. v. Pannaji Devichand, reported in 1922 Bombay 276, took the view that even an order staying a suit under Section 10 does not prevent a Court from making interlocutory orders, such as orders for a Receiver or an injunction or an order for attachment before judgment and therefore I am of view that this Court has the jurisdiction to consider the application for temporary injunction and therefore will not refuse to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.
Thomas Bear And Sons (India) Limited vs Prayag Narain on 7 March, 1940
15. Such a right has been recognised by courts in India in a case as early as Thomas Bear and Sons (India) v. Prayag Narain. On a difference of opinion between two judges a learned Single Judge observed as follows:-
Bajaj Electricals Limited vs Metals & Allied Products And Anr. on 4 August, 1987
18. Another case where such an injunction was granted is Bajaj Electricals Limited, Bombay v. Metals and Allied Products, Bombay and Anr., . The question there was whether the Plaintiffs goods which were electric lamps, lighting, fittings, accessories, kitchen appliances such as stoves, heaters, toasters, mixers, grinder, pressure cookers and kitchen wares ought to be considered as allied to the Defendants goods which were being sold by them under the very same trade mark "Bajaj" i.e. Kitchen appliances such as Hot-Carrier, Ice Box, Hot Lunch Box, etc. The further question was whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction restraining the Defendants from passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiffs under the same trade mark "Bajaj". The Court rejected the contention of the Defendants that the goods are wholly dissimilar and that the purchasers of their utensils would not be confused by the use of the word "Bajaj" on the articles of the Defendants, in the following words:-
Sarin Chemical Laboratory vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, U.P on 7 August, 1970
In Sarin Chemical Laboratory v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., , the Supreme Court has while considering the meaning of word toiletry, observed as follows:-
Bal Pharma Ltd. vs Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 28 August, 2001
29. A similar situation arose before this Court in the case of Bal Pharma Limited v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. The Division Bench of this Court by a judgment delivered on 28th August, 2001 in Appeal No. 778 of 2001 arising out of the Notice of Motion No. 1645 of 2001 in Suit No. 2349 of 2001 made the following observation:-