V. S. Deshpanda, C. J.

( 1 ) COUNSEL had requested that the whole appeal itself may be heard. We accordingly heard it. After having heard the learned counsel we think the real question at issue is this. Under Section 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958, the respondent- plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the registered trade mark matador in respect of the combs manufactured by it in Austria inasmuch as the said trade mark has been registered in India. The grant of temporary injunction is governed by the well-known considerations of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience. A prima facie case is made out in respect of a legal right. But injunction is an equitable remedy. It need not follow invariably on the proof of legal rights. Had that been so the whole distinction between law and equity which is now codified in the Indian statutes would disappear. The grant of temporary injunction has to be in accordance with order 39 of C. P. C. and not according to the provisions of the Trade Mark Act. Similarly, the grant of permanent injunction has to be according to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act.

( 2 ) WE sympathise with the case of the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document