SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1919

A.S.ANAND, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Bengal Waterproof LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned advocates of parties the appeal arising from the Special Leave Petition was finally heard and is being disposed of by this judgment. A short question arises for our consideration in this appeal. It is to the effect as to whether the suit filed by the appellant against the respondents in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad being Original Suit No. 123 of 1982 was barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC for short). The Trial Court held that the suit was barred by the aforesaid provisions. We will refer to the appellant as plaintiff and the respondents as defendants for the sake of convenience in latter part of this judgment. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held on merits that the plaintiff had established its case of passing off against the defendants. However the decree of dismissal of the suit as passed by the trial Court of the ground that the suit was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 Sub-rule (3) was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. As no writ appeal lies against the said order before the Division Bench of the Hig











































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top