Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Intiyaz Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
Puma Se – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impingement and injunction against trademark use. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. framework of article 227 of the constitution. (Para 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 3. contentions regarding delay in filing statements. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. necessary conditions for condonation of delay. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. strict interpretation of the commercial courts act. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal of the petition. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition was filed impugning the order dated 29th January, 2021 of the District Judge (Commercial), South East, Saket, New Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 323/2019, of dismissal of the application of the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The said application was dismissed vide the impugned order, on the ground that the Commercial Courts, under the law have no power to extend the period of 120 days for filing the written statement.
2. The suit from which the present petition arises was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the District Judge (Commercial Court), seeking permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner/defendant from selling go
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
