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

1992 Supreme(Kar) 227

SYED KALEEM – Appellant
Versus
MYSORE LAKSHMI BEEDI WORKS – Respondent


Advocates:
A.R.SRINIVASA RAO, H.Kantharaj, S.N.BHATT

L. S. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) HEARD both counsel. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure for setting aside the order dated 6-12-1991 passed by the III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, in C. C. No. 3680-1988, ordering framing of charge against the accused under Section 120-A, 120-B and 420 of IPC.

( 2 ) IN the Court below, the petitioner is accused No. 2 and 1st respondent is the Complainant. Accused No. 1 Syed Khasim having died, is not made a party in this Revision Petition. The facts leading to the filing of this petition briefly stated are as follows : the complainant is said to be the proprietor of Mysore Lakshmi Beedi Works, Maddur, According to him, it is a well established firm enjoying immense reputation and good sales of his beedies. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also said to be traders in beedies at Mandya, carrying on business under different trade names. Having come to know that accused persons were selling their beedies by using the trade mark of the complainant i. e. , 'mysore Lakshmi Beedies' the complainant filed a private complaint against them in PCR No. 27/88 before the III Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,

















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