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

2007 Supreme(Del) 2769

ANIL KUMAR
AHMED OOMERBHOY – Appellant
Versus
GAUTAM TANK – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Praveen Anand, Advocate
Ms.Pratibha M.Singh and Mr.M.K.Minglani, Advocates.

ANIL KUMAR, J.(Oral)

IA No.4575/2005 and IA 4820/2005

1. This order will dispose of plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking restraint against the defendants from using the mark “Super Postman” for sale of edible groundnut oils or any other cognate products and the application of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 30th May, 2005 whereby the defendants were restrained from using the mark Super Postman or any other mark deceptively similar thereto for sale of edible groundnut oils or any other cognate products.

2. The suit on behalf of plaintiff No.1, a partnership firm was filed by a Court receiver appointed by High Court of Judicature at Mumbai by order dated 6.7.2000 in Suit No.4913/2000 titled Majid A Oomerbhoy Vs. Rashid S.Oomerbhoy and others, who had taken over the possession of partnership business assets which was trading as M/s.Ahmed Mills. It is contended that plaintiff No.1 is a registered partnership firm which was trading in the name of M/s.Ahmed Mills. The suit is also filed against defendants N


































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