IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IA No.10795/2011 in CS(OS) 514/2010 STOKELY VAN CAMP INC & ANR... Plaintiff Through Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Kumar, Adv. versus HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LTD... Defendant Through Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Adv.with Mr.Sumit Wadhwa, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. By this application moved under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, defendant seeks directions for staying the further proceedings in the present suit till the disposal of the rectification petition which is already pending before the Appellate Board (IPAB). The rectification petition was filed by the defendant after the institution of the present suit. 2. Arguing the present application, Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant, stated that even though the defendant has filed rectification proceedings before the Appellate Board without seeking leave of the court still the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 124(1) (ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 pending the rectification proceedings before IPAB. In support of her arguments counsel for the defendant placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Puma Stationer P. Ltd. & Anr v. Hindustan Pencils Ltd., 2010 (43) PTC 479 (Del) (DB). 3. Counsel submitted that as far as the present case is concerned, prima facie the defendant has already succeeded in satisfying this court with regard to the invalidity of the plaintiff s trade mark and therefore this court has to stay the suit for a period so long till the Appellate Board decides the rectification application moved by the defendant in accordance with the mandate of section 124 of the Act. 4. Counsel also submitted that the prior filing of the application of the defendant would not affect the right of the defendant to seek grant of the relief even at this stage as already the defendant in any case has challenged the validity of the trade mark of the plaintiffs in the written statement. Counsel thus submitted that the defendant fulfils the ingredients of Section 124 of the Trade Mark Act for the grant of the relief of stay of the present suit.

2 5. Counsel also submitted that the defendant need not withdraw the earlier application filed by the defendant and can insist upon the order in terms of Section 124 of the Trade Mark Act as the defendant fully satisfies the conditions laid down in the said provision. 6. Counsel further submitted that the right of the defendant will be deemed to have been abandoned only when the defendant fails to file the application before the Appellate Board within a period of three months and the defendant in this case has already filed an application and therefore the plea of abandonment will not be available to the plaintiff. 7. Counsel also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendant has already filed rectification application as the filing of such an application will only result in early disposal of the same. 8. Counsel also submitted that Section 124 of the Trade Mark Act in fact imposes an obligation on the court itself to grant stay in the proceedings to enable the party to move rectification application whenever the court feels prima facie satisfied about the invalidity of the registration of the trade mark of the other party. Counsel thus submitted that the defendant even need not move any such application in this regard. 9. Opposing the present application, Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that the defendant has already filed a rectification petition without seeking leave of this court and therefore the defendant is not entitled to move this court in terms of Section 124 of the Trade Mark Act. 10. Counsel further submitted that indisputably, the rectification petition was not moved by the defendant prior to the filing of the suit on and therefore for seeking stay of the present suit the defendant has to fulfil the conditions laid down under sub-clause (ii) of Clause (1) of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that under the said sub clause (ii), the Court in the event of being satisfied regarding the invalidity of the mark can frame an issue and then adjourn the suit for a period of three months so as to enable the applicant to file the rectification application and since the rectification application itself has already been filed by the defendant, therefore, they are not entitled to stay at this stage and in fact the right of the defendant to move such an application shall be deemed to have been abandoned by them. 11. Counsel also submitted that the defendant had earlier filed IA No. 4994/2010 under Section 124(1) (ii) of the Trade Mark Act 1999 and the same was not pressed by the defendant even after the dismissal of the injunction application of the plaintiffs on and not even after the dismissal of the appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging the said dismissal order dated and therefore, by this fresh application the defendant cannot seek stay of the present proceedings to the serious prejudice and detriment of the interests of the plaintiffs as grant of any such stay at this stage will unnecessarily delay the disposal of the present suit.

3 12. Counsel further submitted that in fact the defendant has suppressed from this court that they have already filed a rectification petition before the Appellate Board and therefore the defendant is not entitled to claim the stay of the present proceedings. Counsel also submitted that the plaintiff had challenged the order of the Hon ble Division Bench before the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and vide order dated the Apex Court left the legal questions raised by the plaintiffs in the said appeal open for consideration of this court. Counsel thus submitted that the defendant still will have to satisfy this court with regard to the invalidity of the said trade mark of the plaintiffs as per the mandatory requirement of Section 124 of the Trade Mark Act. 13. Counsel further argued that the defendant has been deliberately delaying disposal of the said rectification application filed by them as for several dates they failed to rectify the defects in the said petition despite being repeatedly informed by the office of the said Board. 14. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have given my thoughtful considerations to the arguments advanced by them. 15. Before dealing with the contentions raised by the rival parties in the present application, it will be appropriate to give brief narration of the facts of the present case. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, its Directors etc. from using the expression REHYDRATES REPLENISHES RECHARGES or any other expression identical to and/ or deceptively similar to the said mark, slogan, expression etc. in relation to any of its products including beverages, health drinks etc. resulting in violation of the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiffs in the said trade mark. The plaintiffs have also claimed decree of damages/ rendition of accounts to the tune of Rs.21 lacs against the defendant. As per the averments set out by the plaintiffs in the plaint, plaintiff No.1 has ownership in respect of registered trade-mark for the expression REHYDRATE REPLENISH REFUEL since the year 2003 for their internationally known product Gatorade, a sports drink. The plaintiffs have also claimed that the said mark was coined by plaintiff No.1 in the year 2002 and was first put to use by the plaintiffs in June 2003 in USA and the said trademark is in use in India since the year 2004 when the plaintiffs had launched the said sports drink under the name of Gatorade in the Indian market. Grievance of the plaintiffs against the defendant is that the defendant has recently launched a new product by the name of ISOTONIK which is also an energy drink and the defendant has also started using the same expression REHYDRATES REPLENISHES RECHARGES prominently on their packaging/promotional material pertaining to the said product. The plaintiff has thus claimed that adoption of the same expression by the defendant for their said energy drink is illegal, fraudulent and in complete violation of the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs in the said expression and also it is infringement of the trade mark and copy right of the plaintiffs in the said mark and brand name. The defendant has already filed written statement in the present case and the main defence raised by the defendant in the present case is that the said expression is descriptive of the goods and the same is devoid of any distinctive character. The defendant has also taken a stand that use of the expression REHYDRATES FLUIDS, REPLENISHES VITAL SALT, RECHARGES

4 GLUCOSE as is being used by the defendant is not an infringement of the use of single expression of the plaintiff for the reason that the said use satisfies the provisions of Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act and that use of the said expression in relation to the defendants goods indicates the kind, quality, intended purpose and value of the defendants goods and other characteristics of the defendant s goods. The defendant has thus claimed that the said expressions are not being used by the defendant as trade-mark but only as bonafide description of their products and the same cannot be said to be an infringement of the plaintiff s rights over the said expression and the plaintiffs cannot have any kind of monopoly on such expressions describing the quality of the goods. Along with the suit the plaintiffs have also moved an application for the grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, CPC. The said application of the plaintiff was dismissed by a detailed order dated passed by this court. The said order dated was challenged by the plaintiff by filing an appeal vide FAO(OS) 448/2010 and the said appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the Hon ble Division Bench vide order dated The appellate court upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge and found that the plaintiffs/appellants do not have any prima-facie case in their favour and the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant/ respondent who will be caused grave and irreparable injury if injunction as prayed for is granted. The said order of the Hon ble Division Bench was further challenged by the plaintiff before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated the SLP filed by the appellants was dismissed while leaving the legal issues open for the consideration of this court. 16. After giving the aforesaid background of the case, let me now revert back to the controversy in hand. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff on Along with the said suit an interim application vide IA No.3646/2010 was also filed. Before even the court could hear arguments on the stay application, the defendant had moved an application under Section 124(1) (ii) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 thereby seeking leave of this court in order to file a rectification application before IPAB against the plaintiff s registered trade-mark. Arguments on injunction application were heard by this court on and the said application was dismissed by this court vide order dated The appeal against the said order was preferred by the appellant on and the same was dismissed by the Hon ble Division Bench vide orders dated In the meanwhile on defendant filed a rectification application before IPAB vide application bearing number (ORA/147/2011/TM/DEL) under Section 57 & 125 of the Trade Marks Act thereby challenging the validity of the plaintiffs trade mark REHYDRATES REPLENISHES RECHARGES. The said rectification application was moved by the defendant without seeking any leave of the court although application to this effect filed by the defendant u/s 124 of the Act was pending consideration before this court. Reply to the defendants IA No.4994/2010 was filed by the plaintiff on Thereafter, defendant sought time to file rejoinder to the same. The Hon ble Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP filed by the plaintiffs against the order of the Hon ble Division Bench vide orders dated and it is thereafter that the defendant had moved yet another application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act to apprise this court about the filing of the rectification application filed by the defendant on and praying for stay of the instant suit till the disposal of the said rectification application.

5 The defendant in the present application has taken a stand that this court has heard arguments on the applications being IA No.3646/2010(injunction application u/o 39 Rule 1,2 CPC) and IANo.4994/2010(stay application u/s 124 TMA ) and then reserved judgment. The defendants have also taken a stand that although this court passed an order on the injunction application but over-looked passing any order on IA No.4994/2010. The defendant has further taken a stand that pending appeal before the Division Bench of this court they have filed rectification petition before IPAB on and the defendant has also taken a stand that since this court has already given a prima-facie finding on the invalidity of the trade-mark of the plaintiff, therefore, further proceedings in the present matter must be stayed so that final adjudication on the validity of the said registered trade-mark of the plaintiffs can take place before Intellectual Property Appellate Board(IPAB). This application has been strongly contested by the plaintiffs and rival contentions of both the counsels have already been referred above. 17. Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act (Section 111 prior to amendment of Trade Marks Act, 1999) has been subject matter of discussion in a catena of judgments of this court and other High Courts. For better appreciation of the controversy in hand, Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 is reproduced as under: Stay of proceedings where the validity of registration of the trade mark is questioned, etc.- (1) Where in any suit for infringement of a trade mark- (a) the defendant pleads that registration of the plaintiff' s trade mark is invalid; or (b) the defendant raises a defence under clause (e) of sub- section (2) of section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of registration of the defendant' s trade mark, the court trying the suit (hereinafter referred to as the court), shall,- (i) if any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff' s or defendant' s trade mark are pending before the Registrar or the Appellate Board, stay the suit pending the final disposal of such proceedings; (ii) if no such proceedings are pending and the court is satisfied that the plea regarding the invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff's or defendant' s trade mark is prima facie tenable, raise an issue regarding the same and adjourn the case for a period of three months from the date of the framing of the issue in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the Appellate Board for rectification of the register. (2) If the party concerned proves to the court that he has made any such application as is referred to in clause (b) (ii) of sub- section (1) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as the court may for sufficient cause allow, the trial of the suit shall stand stayed until the final disposal of the rectification proceedings. (3) If no such application as aforesaid has been made within the time so specified or within such extended time as the court may allow, the issue as to the validity of the registration of the trade mark concerned shall be deemed to have been abandoned and the court shall proceed with the suit in regard to the other issues in the case. (4) The final order made in any rectification proceedings referred to in sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) shall be binding upon the parties and the court shall dispose of the suit conformably to such order in so far as it relates to the issue as to the validity of the registration of the trade mark.

6 (5) The stay of a suit for the infringement of a trade mark under this section shall not preclude the court from making any interlocutory order (including any order granting an injunction, directing account to be kept, appointing a receiver or attaching any property), during the period of the stay of the suit. As heading of the said section suggests it deals with stay of the proceedings by the court where the validity of registration of the trade mark of other party is in question. 18. On a bare reading of the said provision the same envisages satisfaction of the following conditions to be fulfilled for the stay of the proceedings pending before the court. The first and foremost condition is that such a suit is a suit for infringement of trade mark. If this condition is satisfied then the court will examine the defence raised by the defendant to find whether the same satisfies either of the conditions i.e. (a) or (b) of section 124(1) of the Act. Section 124(1)(a) contemplates a situation where the defendant pleads that registration of the plaintiffs trade mark is invalid and Section 124(1)(b) envisages a situation where the defendant raises a defence under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of registration of the defendants trade mark. If one of these conditions envisaged in sub-clause (a) and (b) is satisfied then the court trying the suit shall stay the same in accordance with the subsequent subsections. If condition (i) of Section 124(1) is satisfied i.e. if any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff s or defendant s trade-mark are already pending before the Registrar or the Appellate Board then the court shall stay the suit till the final disposal of such proceedings and if the condition (ii) of Section 124(1) is satisfied i.e. the rectification proceedings are not pending before the Registrar or the Appellate Board and the court is satisfied that the plea regarding the invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff s or defendant s trade mark is prima-facie tenable, then the court shall raise an issue regarding the same and adjourn the case for a period of three months from the date of framing of issue in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the Appellate Board for rectification of the register. Sub-section (2) of Section 124 further provides that if the party concerned proves to the court that he has made any such application as is referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (1) within the time specified therein or within such extended time as the court may for sufficient cause allow, the trial of the suit shall stand stayed until the final disposal of the rectification proceedings. Sub Section (3) of Section 124 of the Act deals with the consequences of not filing an application within the time specified by the court or within such extended time as the court may have allowed and then the court shall proceed with the suit in regard to the other issues in the case and issue as to the validity of the registration of the trade mark concerned then shall be deemed to have been abandoned by such a party. Sub-section (4) of Section 124 of the Act envisages that the final order made in any rectification proceedings referred to in sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be binding upon the parties and the court shall dispose of the suit comfortably to such order in so far as it relates to the issue as to the validity of the registration of the trade mark. Sub section (5) of Section 124 provides that the stay of a suit for infringement of trade mark under this section shall not preclude the court from making any interlocutory order including any

7 order granting an injunction directing account to be kept, appointing a receiver or attaching any property during the period of the stay of the suit. 19. It is thus seen that in any suit for infringement of trade mark on the satisfaction of either of the conditions envisaged under clause (a) or (b) of Section 124, the court shall straightway stay the suit till the disposal of proceedings before the Appellate Board if clause (i) of section 124(1) is satisfied. Therefore, Clause (i) of section 124(1) poses no difficulty as for claiming stay under this clause the party has to merely satisfy the court that the proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the trade mark of the either party are already pending consideration before the Registrar or the Appellate Board before the institution of the present suit. On the other hand, for claiming stay under clause (ii) of section 124 (1), the party has to satisfy the following conditions:- 1. That no such proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the trademark of the either party are already pending before the Registrar or the Appellate Board. 2. That the contention regarding the invalidity of the registration of the plaintiffs or defendants trade-mark is prima-facie tenable. If both the above mentioned conditions are satisfied then the court will raise an issue regarding the same and also adjourn the case for a period of three months from the date of the framing of the issue in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the Appellate Board for rectification of the register. 20. The aforesaid legal position was settled by this court in the case of Kedar Nath v. Monga Perfumery and Flour Mills reported in AIR 1974 Delhi 12 and relevant part of the same is reproduced as under: This section deals with the procedure in cases where the defendant in an action for infringement attacks the validity of the plaintiff's registration. If any rectification proceeding is already Pending before the Registrar or the High Court the action for infringement has to be stayed until the final disposal of the rectification proceeding under Section 111(1)(i) [Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is similar to the Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.] Under Section 111(1)(i) where no rectification proceeding is pending and the Court is satisfied that the contention as to validity is bona fide and prima facie sustainable, an issue as to validity will be raised to enable the party concerned to apply to the High Court for rectification. It was not disputed that under Section 111 the Court has the Power to grant interlocutory injunction etc., even where the issue as to the validity of registration is raised and the Court stays the proceeding in an infringement suit. the scheme of the section shows that before the Court stays a -Proceeding in the infringement action, proceeding for rectification of the register under Section 111 must be pending on that date. The defendant cannot file an application subsequent to the institution of the suit under Section 111 and claim that the plaintiff's suit for infringement must be stayed. If no proceeding for rectification of the register is pending on the date of the institution of the suit by the plaintiff then Section 111 is attracted and a Court may adjourn the case for a period of three months in order to enable the defendant to apply to the High Court for rectification of the register. In that case the Court must be satisfied

8 that the contention as to validity of the defendant's registration is bona fide and Prima facie sustainable. 21. The same issue also came up for consideration before this court in the case of Astrazeneca UK Ltd. & Ors v. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 2012 (50) PTC 380 (Del) and after placing reliance on Kedarnaths judgment (Supra) and on a judgment of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court reported in 1999 PTC (19) 718 in the case of Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd., it was held as under : The distinction between Section 124(b)(i) and 124(b)(ii) is on the basis of pendency of the proceedings for rectification of the register and not on the basis of whether the party initiating the proceedings for rectification could initiate such proceedings before the institution of the suit or not. There can be other eventualities under which a party may not be able to initiate the proceedings for rectification before the institution of the suit, but that will not give them a right to circumvent the prima facie satisfaction of his plea for invalidity, by the Court. The distinguishing feature of the two sub clauses is only pendency of the proceedings and nothing more can be read into them. The plea of substantial compliance of the requirement of Section 124 by the plaintiffs is also not sustainable. Either there is compliance of the said provision or non-compliance in the facts and circumstances. Compliance will be when after the institution of the suit, if an application for rectification is to be filed, prima facie invalidity of the opposing mark is to be demonstrated to the Court. The fact that the application could not be filed prior to the institution of the suit, will not entitle a party to circumvent the prima facie satisfaction of the Court. Consequently the proceedings for rectification of the defendant's mark could not be initiated by the plaintiffs without the prima facie satisfaction of their plea by this Court nor this case is liable to be adjourned or stayed for three months in terms of Section 124(b)(i) of the Act to await the outcome of the rectification proceedings initiated by the plaintiffs before the Appellate Board. 22. The said order of the Single Bench was challenged by the aggrieved party before the Hon ble Division Bench and without interfering with the view taken by the learned Single Judge the Division Bench in the following paragraph reiterated the same principles: It was however submitted on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs that in view of provisions of Section 124 of the Act there should have been a stay of the proceedings when the validity of the registration of trade mark is in question. However, in the present case, the provisions of Section 124(1)(b)(ii) would not be applicable. The said provisions are applicable only to an application for rectification which is already pending, in view of which, the suit could be stayed, pending final disposal of such proceedings. The provisions which would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case are those which envisage that where the application for rectification of the order in such proceeding is not pending, then a party seeking rectification applies for rectification, subject to a prima-facie satisfaction of the Court regarding invalidity of the registration of the mark of the opposite party. The appellants/plaintiffs therefore could not have filed an application for rectification without showing, establishing and obtaining prima-facie satisfaction of the Court that they have sufficient material to be able to invalidate the registration of the mark of the respondent/defendant. The aforesaid rectification

9 proceeding which is filed is still pending for consideration. Therefore, the learned Single judge was justified in not staying the Suit. In this connection, reference may be made to the provisions of Section 124(5) of the Trade Marks Act, which entitles the Court to deal with the interlocutory application. Therefore, the submission of the counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in this regard, is misconceived and cannot be accepted. 23. Reiterating the legal principles, Hon ble Justice Gita Mittal also took a same view in the case of Pfizer Products Inc v. Rajesh Chopra & Ors, 2007 (35) PTC 59(Del.) and the relevant paragraph of the judgment is as follows: A bare perusal of the statute shows that it is only if there are pending proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiffs or defendants trademark at the time of filing of the suit that the court is required to stay the suit pending final disposal of such proceedings. However, if no such proceedings are pending, the satisfaction of the court that the plea regarding the invalidity of the registration of the plaintiffs or the defendant's trade mark is prima facie tenable, is a sine qua non under Section 124(1)(b)(ii). Upon such a prima facie view, the law requires the court to raise an issue regarding the same and adjourn the case for a period of three months from the date of framing of issue in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the appellate board for rectification of the register. 24. The case Puma stationer (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the defendant in support of her contention that it is obligatory on the part of the court to order stay of the suit if the proceedings, even if initiated after filing of the suit, are pending before the Appellate Board, in my opinion, is clearly distinguishable as in that case, the Division Bench has not discussed the law in details so as to give a clear picture on the same, nor has it referred to any of the above mentioned cases which have elaborately discussed and analyzed the legal position threadbare. The court has given its decision after placing reliance on two judgments of Single Bench namely, Chandra Bhan Dembla Trading, Delhi v. Bharat Sewing Machine Co., Bikaner AIR 1982 Delhi 230 and Elofix Industries (India) v. Steel Bird Industries, AIR 1985 Delhi 258 but without taking note of any other previous decisions on the subject nor even the case Kedar Nath (supra). It is also found, on the perusal of these judgments, that the facts of these judgments are also quite distinct from the facts of the present case. 25. Before concluding, seeing the case from another point of view, let us consider the scheme of section 124, Trade Marks Act, Section 124 is primarily made to prevent parallel enquiries in the same matter. 26. In the present case, the defendant initially came up with an application u/s 124(1) (ii) of the Act to seek leave of the court in order to initiate proceedings before the IPAB and according to me that was the correct approach taken by the defendant. Things went wrong when the defendant chose not to press that application and later, without taking recourse of following the mandate of section 124(1) (ii), initiated the rectification proceedings before the Appellate Board on his own free will. The defendant, himself acting contrary to the clear provision of statute, cannot expect the court to take a step

10 forward and go out of the way by giving a hypothetical construction to the statute in order to rescue the defendant from his untenable acts. 27. It is a well settled law that when the words of the statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning; the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. The literal interpretation should be given to a statute if the same does not lead to any absurdity. It has been observed by the Apex court in Nandi Devi v. Radha Devi Gupta, AIR 2005 SC 648, that The interpretative function of the Court is to discover the true legislative intent. It is trite that in interpreting a statute the Court must, if the words are clear, plain, unambiguous and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, give to the words that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. Those words must be expounded in their natural and ordinary sense. When a language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning no question of construction of statute arises, for the Act speaks for itself. Courts are not concerned with the policy involved or that the results are injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving effect to the language used. If the words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged object and policy of the Act In Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal, AIR 2003 SC 1543, this Court stated the law in the following terms :- "The court's jurisdiction to interpret a statute can be invoked when the same is ambiguous. It is well known that in a given case the court can iron out the fabric but it cannot change the texture of the fabric. It cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of provision is plain and unambiguous. It cannot add or subtract words to a statute or read something into it which is not there. It cannot re-write or recast legislation Hence, keeping the legal principles as discussed above in mind, it is concluded that in a suit for infringement of a trademark, the applicant cannot ask for a relief of the stay of the suit until he fulfills the conditions stated in 124(1) of the Act. If the rectification proceeding are not pending the institution of the suit, it is obligatory on part of the applicant to follow the provision laid down under section 124(1)(ii) of the Act in order to initiate rectification proceedings before the Appellate Authority. In case he fails to adhere to the same and yet initiates rectification proceedings, then he will not be entitled to the relief of stay of the suit under section 124 of The Trade Mark Act, In the light of the above discussion, the defendant is not entitled to seek stay of the present suit. The application moved by the defendant under section 124(1) (ii) of The Trademarks Act, 1999, is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 3rd September, 2012 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION. CS (OS) No.284/2012. Date of order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION CS (OS) No.284/2012 Date of order: 02.03.2012 M/S ASHWANI PAN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Through: None. Plaintiff Versus M/S KRISHNA

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos /2010. versus. % Date of Hearing : August 25, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO(OS) No.534/2010 & CM Nos.15238-40/2010 RAJ KUMAR BARI & ORS...Appellant through Mr. S.D. Singh & Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advs. versus SHIV RANI & ORS...Respondent

More information

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC)

versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IA No of 2011 (by Defendant u/o VII R. 10 & 11 CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) 1188 of 2011 & IAs 7950 of 2011 (u/o 39 R. 1 & 2 CPC), 3388 of 2013 (u/o XXVI R. 2 CPC) & 18427 of 2013 (by Plaintiff u/o VII R. 14 CPC) LT FOODS LIMITED...

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.A. No.23086/2012 in CS(OS) No.3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. Through versus RAJ KUMAR PRASAD & ORS. Decided on :25.04.2014...Plaintiff Mr.Manav Kumar,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision: 3 rd January, CS(OS) 3534/2012. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 3 rd January, 2018. + CS(OS) 3534/2012 ABBOTT HEALTHCARE PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ranjan Narula, Mr. Shashi P. Ojha & Ms. Astha Bhardwaj,

More information

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004

.. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No /2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 .. IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI:AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No. 11454/2006 in C.S.(OS) No.795/2004 Judgment Reserved on: 09.08.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 02.11.2011 MADAN LAL KHANNA

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No. 684/2004 % 8 th December, 2015 RAJESH @ RAJ CHAUDHARY AND ORS.... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Manish Vashisth and Ms. Trisha Nagpal, Advocates. versus

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB.A. 5/2015 & IA 2340/2015 (for stay) Judgment reserved on February 05, 2015 Judgment delivered on February 13, 2015 M/S VARUN INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS... Appellants

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24 th April, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 08 th October, 2015 + FAO(OS) 220/2015 & CM Nos.7502/2015, 7504/2015 SERGI TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CS (OS) No of Versus CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR O R D E R IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CS (OS) No. 2206 of 2012 KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28.07.2016 + CS(COMM) 644/2016 ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LIMITED versus M/S R.S. SALES CORPORATION & ANR... Plaintiff... Defendants Advocates who

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sunrise Beverages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sunrise Beverages MANU/DE/2228/2007 Equivalent Citation: MIPR2007(3)173, 2007(35)PTC687(Del) Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Discussed Mentioned IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI CS (OS) No. 651/2002 Decided On: 14.08.2007

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 4 th January, 2016 + CS(OS) No.2934/2011 J.C BAMFORD EXCAVATORS LIMITED & ANR... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Pravin Anand, Adv. with Ms.Vaishali

More information

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:

More information

The Jurisdictional Dilemma Surrounding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board

The Jurisdictional Dilemma Surrounding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 20, January 2015, pp 51-59 The Jurisdictional Dilemma Surrounding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board Harshad Pathak* Luthra & Luthra Law Offices, 103

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on : April 25, 2014 + IA No. 5745/2013 (u/o 39 R 1 & 2 CPC) in CS(OS) 660/2013 WOCKHARDT LTD. Through... Plaintiff Mr.Ajay Sahni, Ms. Kanika Bajaj and

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 23 rd April, 2018 J U D G M E N T

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 23 rd April, 2018 J U D G M E N T $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #9 + CS(COMM) 738/2018 DEERE & COMPANY & ANR Through... Plaintiffs Mr. Pravin Anand with Ms. Vaishali Mittal, Mr. Siddhant Chamola and Ms. Vrinda Gambhir, Advocates

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd... Appellant(s) J U D G M E N T. 1) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1464 OF 2008 M/s Raptakos, Brett & Co. Ltd.... Appellant(s) Versus M/s Ganesh Property... Respondent(s) J U D G M

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Through : Mr.Harvinder Singh with Ms. Sonia Khurana, Advs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. Through : Mr.Harvinder Singh with Ms. Sonia Khurana, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Writ Petition (C) No.5260/2006 Reserved on : 23.10.2007 Date of decision : 07.11.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : RAM AVTAR...Petitioner Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION. Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment pronounced on: 10.04.2012 I.A. No.4998/2012 in CS(OS) No.136/2009 SUGANDHA SETHI...Plaintiff Through: Ms. N.Shoba with Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No.178/2008. Judgment Reserved on : 30th September, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. FAO (OS) No.178/2008. Judgment Reserved on : 30th September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT :CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FAO (OS) No.178/2008 Judgment Reserved on : 30th September, 2008 Judgment pronounced on : 9th January, 2009 Ms. Jyotika Kumar...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006. Judgment Reserved on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE I.A. No.1167/2007 in CS(OS) No.2128/2006 Judgment Reserved on: 24.07.2007 Judgment delivered on: 04.03.2008 Mr. V.K. Sayal Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: FAO (OS) 298/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 17.01.2013 FAO (OS) 298/2010 SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE AND ANR... Appellants Through Mr. H.S.

More information

CS(COMM) 49/2017 Page 1 of 7

CS(COMM) 49/2017 Page 1 of 7 $~3. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 49/2017 & IA No.885/2017 (U/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC). VEEKESY RUBBER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD... Plaintiff Through: Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Mr. Sridharan R. Ram

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sandeep Gullah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. Vs. Respondent: Sandeep Gullah MANU/DE/0153/2012 Equivalent Citation: 2012(127)DRJ743, 2012(49)PTC440(Del) Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Singh Relied On IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IA No. 17230/2011 & IA No. 17646/2011

More information

versus CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

versus CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH $~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 5 th July, 2018 + CS(COMM) 93/2018 & I.A. 17848/2014 (Stay), I.A. 8333/2015 (u/o XXXIX Rule 4) M/S SBS BIOTECH(UNIT II) & ORS... Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: C.S. (COMM) 334/2016, IA No. 4525/2016 & 6625/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: C.S. (COMM) 334/2016, IA No. 4525/2016 & 6625/2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.12.2017 + C.S. (COMM) 334/2016, IA No. 4525/2016 & 6625/2016 NEWS NATION NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED... Plaintiff Versus NEWS NATION GUJARAT

More information

1) LPA 561/2010. versus 2) LPA 562/2010. versus 3) LPA 563/2010

1) LPA 561/2010. versus 2) LPA 562/2010. versus 3) LPA 563/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PATENTS ACT LPA No.561 of 2010, LPA No.562 of 2010, LPA No.563 of 2010 & LPA No.564 of 2010 Reserved on: February 02, 2012 Pronounced on: April 20, 2012

More information

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte

#1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MR RAJBIR ORS... Defendant Through: Ex Parte #1 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 222/2016 TATA SONS LIMITED Through:... Plaintiff Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan with Ms. Asavari Jain, Advocates versus MR RAJBIR JINDAL @ ORS...

More information

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant. Versus. Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South 1 Court No. 1 HON BLE ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW CONTEMPT APPLICATION No. 09 OF 2018 Ram Gopal Sharma. Applicant Versus Sh Sanjay Mitra IAS (WB:82), Defence Secretary, 101-A, South

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 367/2007. Date of Decision : 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO (OS) 367/2007. Date of Decision : 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Civil Procedure FAO (OS) 367/2007 Date of Decision : 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2008 EUREKA FORBES LTD. & ANR.... Appellants Through : Mr. Valmiki Mehta,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: Versus THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Rent Control Act R.C.REV.29/2012 Date of Decision: 17.08.2012 SMT. NARENDER KAUR Through: Mr. Adarsh Ganesh, Adv... Petitioner Versus MAHESH CHAND AND

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 28 th January, 2011. + I.A. Nos.3714/2004 & 2051/2005 (both u/o 39 R 1& 2 CPC) & I.A. No.8355/2010 (u/o 3 R IV(2) for discharge of counsel for

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI M/S. KALPAMRIT AYURVED PVT. Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN O R D E R %

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI M/S. KALPAMRIT AYURVED PVT. Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN O R D E R % $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #21 + CS(COMM) 47/2018 PATANJALI AYURVED LIMITED... Plaintiff Through Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Simarnjit Singh, Mr. Siddharth Mahajan, Mr. Saurabh

More information

Newsletter February 2016

Newsletter February 2016 Compiled by: Udita Kanwar, Concept & Editing by: Dr. Mohan Dewan International News A NEW DIMENSION National News LAWYER LY YOURS DEFINING BOUNDARY LINES AGGRIEVED ADIDAS DEAR JOHN DOE BASMATI WARS INDIA

More information

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate.

KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Through: Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR INJUNCTION I.A Nos. 9341/2011 (O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) & 10119/2012( O.39 R.4 CPC) IN CS(OS) 1409/2011 Reserved on: 12th September, 2013 Decided on:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.07.2015 + CS(OS) 442/2013 TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON(PUBL)... Plaintiff Through: Mr. C.S.Vaidyanathan & Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Sr.

More information

$~OS-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: CS(COMM) 223/2018. Mr.Ranjan Narula, Adv.

$~OS-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: CS(COMM) 223/2018. Mr.Ranjan Narula, Adv. $~OS-16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 07.02.2018 + CS(COMM) 223/2018 INTEL CORPORATION Through... Plaintiff Mr.Ranjan Narula, Adv. versus HARPREET SINGH & ORS... Defendant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: CS(OS) 2318/2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PARTITION Judgment delivered on: 14.08.2012 CS(OS) 2318/2006 MR. CHETAN DAYAL Through: Ms Yashmeet Kaur, Adv.... Plaintiff versus MRS. ARUNA MALHOTRA

More information

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate

Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate. versus ABUL KALAM AZAD ISLAMIC AWAKENING CENTRE THROUGH. Through: Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) 6392/2007 & CM Appl.12029/2007 Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Decided on: 1st August, 2012 MOHD. ISMAIL Through:... Petitioner Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION. Judgment Reserved on: Judgment Pronounced on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Judgment Reserved on: 31.03.2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 06.04.2011 IA No. 4427/2011 in CS(OS) No. 669/2011 TANU GOEL & ANR... Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, OMP No.356/2004. Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 OMP No.356/2004 Date of decision : 30th November, 2007 AHLUWALIA CONTRACTS (INDIA) LTD. Through : PETITIONER Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Reserve: Date of Order: March 20, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Reserve: Date of Order: March 20, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION Date of Reserve: 31.01.2008 Date of Order: March 20, 2008 IA No.1881/07(u/O 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC) and IA No.13813/07 (u/o 39

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016. % 28 th November, M/s VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) Nos.421/2016 & 424/2016 % 28 th November, 2017 1. CS(COMM) No.421/2016 M/S VYSYA LEASING & FINANCE LTD.... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Advocate

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, CM(M) 1155/2015. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: November 27, 2015 % Judgment Delivered on: December 01, 2015 + CM(M) 1155/2015 PURAN CHAND Through:... Petitioner Mr.Arun Kumar and Mr.Udit

More information

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS

- versus - MAHAMEDHA URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ORS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Judgment Reserved on: 24th February, 2011 Judgment Pronounced on: 28th February, 2011 CS(OS) No. 2305/2010 SUSHMA SURI & ANR... Plaintiffs

More information

F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus.

F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus. F-19 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2982/2015 MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Ishanki Gupta, Advocate. versus SUDHANSHU KUMAR & ANR. Through: None... Defendants

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1290/2016 THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & ANR... Plaintiffs Through: Mr Karan Bajaj with Ms Kripa Pandit and Mr Dhruv Nayar, Advocates versus GLACIER WATER

More information

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 06 th November, 2017 J U D G M E N T

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 06 th November, 2017 J U D G M E N T $~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 563/2017 MANKIND PHARMA LIMITED... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Ishanki Gupta with Mr.Harsh Vardhan, Advocates. versus SHAM LAL & ORS Through: None...

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ORS... Defendants Through None

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY. MR. AJAY KUMAR & ORS... Defendants Through None $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #15 + CS(COMM) 21/2019 BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.... Plaintiffs Through Ms. Mamta R. Jha with Mr. Vipul Tiwari and Ms. Shipra Philip, Advocates

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No.13139/2011 in CS(OS) 1163/2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2012 SHAMBHU DUTT DOGRA Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate....

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:11 th December, Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus AND. CM (M)No. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (M) No.331/2007 % Date of decision:11 th December, 2009 SMT. SAVITRI DEVI. Petitioner Through: Mr Rajat Aneja, Advocate. Versus SMT. GAYATRI DEVI & ORS....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Reserved on: 5th August, Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Reserved on: 5th August, 2011 Date of decision: 19th September, 2011 FAO(OS) 502/2009 LT. COL S.D. SURIE Through: -versus-..appellant

More information

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs.

Through :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Ms. Abhiruchi Arora, Mr. Akhil Sachar and Ms. Jaishree Shukla, Advs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IA No. 16809/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 1830/2010 IA No. 16756/2010 (u/o 7 R 10 & 11 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 4 th August, 2015 + I.A. No.16571/2012 & I.A. No.16572/2012 in CS (OS) 2527/2009 VEENA KUMARI Through... Plaintiff Mr.D.S. Vohra, Adv.

More information

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus $~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1008/2013 KRISHAN LAL ARORA Through: Versus Date of Pronouncement: August 14, 2015... Plaintiff Dr. N. K. Khetarpal, Adv. GURBACHAN SINGH AND ORS...

More information

Through : Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta and Ms.Promila K.Dhar Advocates. Versus

Through : Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pankaj Gupta and Ms.Promila K.Dhar Advocates. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : PROVIDENT FUND MATTER Writ Petition (C) Nos.670, 671 & 672/2007 Reserved on : 01.02.2007 Date of decision : 09.02.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : PRUDENTIAL SPINNERS

More information

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Nitish Jain & Mr. Jatin Sethi, Advs. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Date of decision: 29th January, 2014 LPA 548/2013, CMs No.11737/2013 (for stay), 11739/2013 & 11740/2013 (both for condonation

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS (COMM) No.890/2018. % Reserved on: 18 th May, 2018 Pronounced on: 25 th May, 2018.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS (COMM) No.890/2018. % Reserved on: 18 th May, 2018 Pronounced on: 25 th May, 2018. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS (COMM) No.890/2018 % Reserved on: 18 th May, 2018 Pronounced on: 25 th May, 2018 CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS Through:... Plaintiff Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior

More information

$~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

$~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI $~R-5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 05.01.2018 + RFA 796/2005 & CM APPL. 16272/2005, CM APPL. 3162/2007 ORIENTAL LONGMAN LTD.... Appellant Through: Mr. Pravin Anand,

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + I.A. Nos /2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + I.A. Nos /2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002 * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + I.A. Nos. 14472/2007 & 5651/2009 in CS(OS) No. 829/2002 % Judgment reserved on : April 29, 2009 Judgment pronounced on : 1 st July, 2009 NATIONAL HORTICULTURE BOARD...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION. Date of Reserve: January 14, Date of Order: January 21, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR DECLARATION Date of Reserve: January 14, 2008 Date of Order: January 21, 2009 CS(OS) No.2582/2008 and IA No.425/2009 M/S DRISHTICON PROPERTIES

More information

18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM)695/2017 & I.A.No.11854/2017. versus. % Date of Decision: 10 th May, 2018 J U D G M E N T

18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + CS(COMM)695/2017 & I.A.No.11854/2017. versus. % Date of Decision: 10 th May, 2018 J U D G M E N T 18 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM)695/2017 & I.A.No.11854/2017 SANDISK LLC, & ANR Through versus... Plaintiffs Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Advocate with Mr.Prithvi Singh and Ms. Pritika

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARMED FORCE TRIBUNAL ACT, 2007 W.P.(C) 3755/2013 DATE OF DECISION : 22.07.2014 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Through Ms. Archana Ramesh, Advocate... Petitioner

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) No.2798/2011 % 19 th October, 2015 SH. SUSHIL YADAV AND ANR. Through: None.... Plaintiffs Versus M/S VALLEY VIEW DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND ORS.... Defendants

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MANAS CHANDRA & ANR... Defendants Through: None

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. MANAS CHANDRA & ANR... Defendants Through: None $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 1694/2015 NOKIA CORPORATION... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover with Mr. Naqeeb Nawab and Mr. Ashwani Pareek, Advocates. versus MANAS CHANDRA &

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION. Date of Judgment: CM(M) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR PERPETUAL, MANDATORY INJUNCTION Date of Judgment: 14.02.2012 CM(M) No.557/2008 DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Through: Mr. D.K. Malhotra, Advocate....

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS. Through None. % Date of Decision : 05 th December, 2017

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS. Through None. % Date of Decision : 05 th December, 2017 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1307/2016 M/S. KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL... Plaintiff Through Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman with Mr. Kapil Kumar Giri and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates versus

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on : 18 th December, 2015

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on : 18 th December, 2015 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on : 18 th December, 2015 + I.A. No. 19355/2015 in CS(OS) 2805/2015 SIDDARTH GUPTA Through: versus... Plaintiff Mr.Sunil Magon, Adv. with

More information

% Judgment reserved on: 18 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 25 th January, FAO(OS) 280/2015 & CM Nos.9540/2015, 9542/2015

% Judgment reserved on: 18 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 25 th January, FAO(OS) 280/2015 & CM Nos.9540/2015, 9542/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 18 th September, 2015 Judgment delivered on: 25 th January, 2016 + FAO(OS) 280/2015 & CM Nos.9540/2015, 9542/2015 SHRI RAM EDUCATION TRUST...Appellant

More information

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

$~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015. versus CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI $~9. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 03.09.2015 % RSA 228/2015 and C.M. No.12883/2015 SHRI BABU LAL Through: Mr. V. Shukla, Advocate.... Appellant versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VERSUS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI VERSUS * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (MAIN) No.420/2008 Date of Decision: July 09, 2010 HANSALAYA PROPERTIES & ORS... Petitioners Through: Mr. H.L.Tiku, Senior Advocate with Ms. Yashmeet Kaur,

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 236/2017 ARUN JAITLEY versus Through:... Plaintiff Mr Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manik Dogra and Mr. Saurabh Seth, Advocates. ARVIND KEJRIWAL

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 05.07.2011 Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No. 18758/2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER...Appellants Through: Mr.Ved Prakash

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2012 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax 10, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020...Appellant.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003. Judgment delivered on: versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER ARB P. 180/2003 Judgment delivered on: 03.07.2006 ESS VEE TRADERS & OTHERS... Petitioners versus M/S AMBUJA CEMENT RAJASTHAN LIMITED...

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 221/2017 & I.A.A 12707/2015 EKO INDIA FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.... Plaintiff Through Mr. Sumit Roy, Advocate versus MR. SUSHIL KUMAR YADAV Through

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI (CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION) RSA No. 149 of 2006 APPELLANTS: 1. On the death of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A NO OF 2012 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012 ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A NO OF 2012 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012 ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A NO OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2012 IN THE MATTER OF: ASSAM SANMILITA MAHASANGHA & ORS PETITIONERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA &

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2 nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2 nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD Guna Complex, Annexe-I, 2 nd Floor, 443, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 Review Petition No. 1/2013 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 33/2013 in ORA/15/2010/PT/DEL

More information

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC)

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR... Defendants Through: Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate. CS(OS) 1442/2004 & I.A.7528/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 1st July, 2014 CS(OS) 1441/2004 & I.A.7527/2013 (of defendant u/o 7 R-11 CPC) SAMANIT ENTERPRISES & ANR Through:

More information

#25 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 30 th May, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN J U D G M E N T

#25 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus. % Date of Decision: 30 th May, 2018 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN J U D G M E N T #25 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM)117/2017 SANDISK CORPORATION Through versus J K ELECTRONICS & ORS Through... Plaintiff Ms. Shwetashree Majumder with Ms. Pritika Kohli, Advocates...

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9118-9119 OF 2010 Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012. versus

$~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012. versus $~J *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + IA 16973/2013 in CC 50/2013 in CS(OS) 626/2012 Date of Reserve: April 07, 2015 Date of Decision:July 31, 2015 JASBIR SINGH LAMBA & ORS... Plaintiffs Through

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: IA.No. 238/2006 (u/o 7 R 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1420/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Judgment delivered on: IA.No. 238/2006 (u/o 7 R 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1420/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Suit For Permanent Injunction Judgment delivered on: 22.04.2008 IA.No. 238/2006 (u/o 7 R 11 CPC) in CS(OS) 1420/2005 IA.No. 5271/2006 (u/o 6 R 17 CPC)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : TRAI ACT, 1997 WP(C) 617/2013 & CM No.1167/2013 (interim relief) DATE OF ORDER : 13.03.2013 IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED & ANR....Petitioners Through: Mr. Maninder

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, ARB. P. No.373/2015. versus

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, ARB. P. No.373/2015. versus * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on: 27 th January, 2016 + ARB. P. No.373/2015 CONCEPT INFRACON PVT. LTD... Petitioner Through: Mr.Balaji Subramanium, Adv. with Mr.Samar

More information

SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS... Appellants Through Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 DATE OF DECISION : 7th February, 2014 LA.APP. 632/2011 & CM No. 17689/2013 (for stay) SURAJ BHAN THR GPA HOLDER & ORS.... Appellants

More information

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004

% W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Judgment delivered on: November 27, 2015 % W.P.(C) No. 5513/2004 M/S MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI... Petitioner Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate. versus

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + FAO No. 347/2017. % 23 rd August, 2017 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO No. 347/2017 % 23 rd August, 2017 ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC.... Appellant Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr. Aditya

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl.M.C. 638/2009 & Crl.M.A.2384/09 (stay) Date of reserve:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Crl.M.C. 638/2009 & Crl.M.A.2384/09 (stay) Date of reserve: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Crl.M.C. 638/2009 & Crl.M.A.2384/09 (stay) Date of reserve: 04.03.2009 Date of decision: 23.03.2009 D.R. PATEL & ORS. Through:

More information

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate

Versus. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.VI,... Respondents. Delhi and Anr. Through Ms.Amita Gupta, Advocate IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER Writ Petition (C) No.4397/1999 Reserved on : 13. 03.2007 Date of decision : 03.04.2007 IN THE MATTER OF : Rameshwar Dayal...Petitioner.

More information

$~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018

$~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018 $~4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:- 11 th April, 2018 + CM (M) 283/2016 M/S KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla & Mr. Ajay Amitabh

More information

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 728/2018. versus CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 728/2018. versus CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH $~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 728/2018 ARUN CHOPRA Through: versus Date of decision: 28 th November, 2018... Plaintiff Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate. (M:9810962950) KAKA-KA DHABA

More information