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

2017 Supreme(Del) 2454

MUKTA GUPTA
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
AAR ESS REMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Ms. Shwetasree Majumdar, Ms. Tanya Varma and Mr. Utkarsh Joshi, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

I.A. No. 11786/2016 (under Order XI Rule 1 (4) (as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015)

1. By this application the plaintiff had sought leave to file the additional documents if need be.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff seeks to withdraw the application as no further documents are required to be filed.

3. The application is dismissed as withdrawn.

I.A. Nos. 11787/2017 and 8435/2017 (under Section 151 CPC)

1. By this application the plaintiff seeks to place the figures relating to the sales and promotional expenditure incurred by the plaintiff towards sale of products under its trademarks FORTUM, FORTAM, ZINACEF, AUGMENTIN and FORTAZ and towards promotion of trademark in sealed cover.

2. The documents have already been placed in sealed cover and are taken on record.

3. Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1328/2016 and I.A. No. 8434/2017 (under Order XIII Rule 2 CPC-by plaintiff)

1. Plaintiff in the present suit has sought the following reliefs :

“(a) An order of permanent injunctio
































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