Back
MANMOHAN, SAURABH BANERJEE
Indian Plywood And Sunmica Through Its Proprietor Md. Yusuf Hasan – Appellant
Versus
Century World – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.1395/2023
Keeping in view the averments in the application, the delay in filing the
present appeal is condoned.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
C.M.Nos.1393-1394/2023
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the applications stand disposed of.
FAO (COMM) 11/2023 & C.M.No.1392/2023
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the ex parte ad-interim order dated 7th October, 2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CS (Comm.) No. 778/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff No.1 has incorrectly arrayed Appellant no.1/Defendant No.1 in the impugned suit proceedings, as the Appellant No. 1 is neither the manufacturer nor the holder of any trademark and is merely engaged in the sale and distribution of various goods including kitchen hardware, door hardware etc. including goods bearing mark 'PAR CENTUARY' which it procures from the manufacturer-M/s National Hardware Products i.e., the Respondent No. 2 in the present proceedings.
3. He states that the impugned order has been passed on a misrepresentation and
Availability of alternative effective remedy and the importance of disclosing all relevant facts in legal proceedings
The court emphasized the necessity for timely decisions on ex parte injunctions, affirming the right of appellants to use trademarks without undue delay.
Point of law: Learned Single Judge is already seized of the controversy and has listed the matter day after, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders at this junctu....
Learned Single Judge is already seized of the controversy and has listed the matter day after, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the impugned orders at this juncture.
(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....
Concealment of material facts and alternative effective remedy for challenging ex parte interim relief orders.
An injunction obtained under misrepresentation cannot be vacated without proven suppression of material facts; established trademark rights remain effective despite prior lawsuits.
The court's decision was influenced by the legal soundness of allowing the amendment application and the need to balance equities in considering related applications.
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
