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

1979 Supreme(Del) 217

AVADH BEHARI ROHATGI
ELLORA INDUSTRIES – Appellant
Versus
BANARSI DAS GOELA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANUP SINGH, N.K.ANAND, PARVIN ANAND

( 51 ) FOURTHLY, there is no reasonable prospect that the inquiry would reach a positive result. Kerly says that account of profits is an equitable remedy and the court has a discretion whether or not to grant it. Only in certain cases will the court grant an account of profits. I do not think this is one of those cases where I ought to order an inquiry into profits.

( 52 ) AT the fag end of the case before me the defendants made an application (CM 962 of 1979) for additional evidence. I do not think there is any ground to allow the application as none of the conditions of 0. 41 rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure is satisfied. The application, is accordingly dismissed.

( 53 ) FOR these reasons the appeal is dismissed. Cross-objections are allowed to this extent that it is held that the defendants-appellants, in addition to infringement of registered trade mark, are also guilty of the tort of passing-off. Cross-objections are dismissed in so far as the claim for accounts of profits is concerned. The decree for injunction passed by the trial court is affirmed. The defendants are ordered to deliver up the offending boxes, wrappers, letters heads for destruction. The defendants shall pay































































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