Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ram Prakash Gupta vs Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Ors on 3 October, 2007
17. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that
while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the
court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken
by the defendants in its written statement would be irrelevant. [vide C.
Natrajan v. Ashim Bai, (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta v.
Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v.
Hede and Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614, Mayar (H.K.)
Hardesh Ores Pvt. Ltd vs M/S. Hede And Company on 15 May, 2007
17. The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that
while considering an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the
court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken
by the defendants in its written statement would be irrelevant. [vide C.
Natrajan v. Ashim Bai, (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta v.
Rajiv Kumar Gupta, (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v.
Hede and Co., (2007) 5 SCC 614, Mayar (H.K.)
Church Of Christ Charitable Trust & Edu vs M/S. Ponniamman Educationa Trust Rep. ... on 3 July, 2012
State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557]. The above view has been
once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in Church of
Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society v.
Ponniamman Educational Trust, (2012) 8 SCC 706.
Exphar Sa & Anr vs Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr on 20 February, 2004
In the case of Exphar SA and Another vs. Eupharma
Laboratories Ltd. and Another, AIR 2004 SC 1682, it was held in
para 9 and 15 as under :
Oil & Natural Gas Commission vs Utpal Kumar Basu on 23 June, 1994
15. Furthermore, the appellants' plaint said that the
'cease and desist' notice was sent to the appellant No. 2 at
its office in New Delhi and in that notice it was alleged that
the appellant No. 2 had infringed the copyright of the
respondent No. 2 to the trademark 'Maloxine'. Now a cease
and desist notice means that the recipient is alleged to
have infringed the rights of the sender of the notice to the
copyright and as a result of such alleged infringement the
recipient is liable to institution of civil and/or criminal
proceedings. It is a threat. The plaint says that this threat
was received within the jurisdiction of the High Court a fact
which was sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of that Court.
The respondents' reliance on the decision of this Court in
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and
Ors. 1994 (1) Supp SCR 252 and Union of India and Ors.
v. Advani Exports Ltd. and Anr. 2002 (1) SCC 567 is
inapposite. Those decisions held that the service of a mere
notice may not be sufficient to found jurisdiction unless
such notice formed an integral part of the cause of action.
But a 'cease and desist' notice in a copyright action cannot,
particularly in view of Section 60 of the Act, be termed to
be a 'mere' notice. Such a threat may give rise to the right
to institute a suit to counter such threat and to ask for relief
on the ground that the alleged infringement to which the
threat related was not in fact an infringement of any legal
right of the person making such threat."