Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
NAVIN CHAWLA
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash Nebhwani Trading as Mahesh Matar Namkeen – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to order regarding trademark injunction. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. need for local commissioner visit to new address. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's considerations on local commission execution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. order allowing execution at new premises. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. conclusion with no costs ordered. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
This petition has been heard through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 14406/2021 & 14407/2021 (Exemptions)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 333/2021 & CM APPL. 14405/2021
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)- 02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi in Suit, being CS (Comm) 404/2021 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 148 and 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking extension of time to make compliance with the Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, as also seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit and execute the commission at premises A-21, Khatri Nagar, Near RIICO Pulia, Sanganer, Jaipur-302029, has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.
2. As the Impugne
The court affirmed that in cases of ex parte orders, subsequent factual discoveries warrant revisiting previous orders to ensure proper execution and uphold the efficacy of injunctions.
The main legal point established is that the appointment of a Local Commissioner should be at the correct address where the offending goods are stored to serve the purpose of the injunction.
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
