Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S. DOCTOR
Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Bhavesh Ramjibhai Gada – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues in multiple interim applications (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendants' arguments on suppression of material facts (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. plaintiff's defense against suppression claims (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. legal boundaries of order xxxix rule 4 (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. rejection of defendants' suppression claims (Para 29) |
| 6. court's order on interim applications (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
Arif S. Doctor, J.
1. Since the issues that arise for consideration and the submissions made in all three captioned Interim Applications are common, the captioned Interim Applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. This Court on 7th May 2024 passed an ex-parte ad-interim Order by which the Defendants in the captioned Interim Applications were, inter alia, restrained from using the trade mark 
(“the said trade mark”) in relation to manufacturing, selling, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting for sale or otherwise dealing in garments/uniforms (“the impugned goods”). The Defendants, on being served with the ex-parte ad- interim Order, have filed an Affidavit in Reply in
Ex-parte interim orders were upheld against defendants for trade mark infringement, dismissing claims of suppression as insufficient given established rights and the distinct nature of John Doe actio....
An injunction obtained under misrepresentation cannot be vacated without proven suppression of material facts; established trademark rights remain effective despite prior lawsuits.
The court emphasized that misleading statements in seeking ex-parte injunctions undermine judicial integrity, warranting vacating such orders.
Suppression of contradictory statements to trademark registry asserting marks dissimilar disentitles interim injunction in passing off and copyright suit; clean hands and prosecution history estoppel....
(1) An ad interim injunction shall not be granted in derogation of right of opposite party.(2) An order passed without issuing notice to opposite party cannot be brought under purview of Section 36 C....
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
A plaintiff cannot file multiple suits for the same cause of action concurrently in different jurisdictions; it constitutes forum shopping and is impermissible under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The duty of fair disclosure and the exceptional nature of without notice applications, emphasizing the importance of time-limited injunctions and the reserved liberty for the Defendants to apply for ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
