Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
JYOTI SINGH
Dhananjay Rathi – Appellant
Versus
Shree Vasu Steels Private Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for impleading a necessary party (Para 1) |
| 2. background on trademark registration and family trusts (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments regarding the necessity of the centre in the suit (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's reasoning on impleading necessary parties (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's order and procedural directions (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT
I.A. 9048/2022 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, by Plaintiff)
1. Present application has been preferred on behalf of the Plaintiff to implead Members/Trustees of Rathi Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the `Centre') as party Defendants to the present suit. Ordinarily, this Court would have sought reply to the application on behalf of the Defendants, however, the application is being decided without calling for a reply, in view of the common ground between the parties that the `Centre' is a necessary party in the present suit.
2. A short expose of facts required for the purpose of deciding the present application is that in and around the year 1942, three male members of Rathi Family namely, Mr. G.D. Rathi, Mr. K.L. Rathi and
The court determined that the members/trustees of the Rathi Research Centre are necessary parties to the trademark suit for effective adjudication under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the principles enunciated in several judgments to determine the necessity of impleadin....
The court emphasized the concurrent right of registered proprietors of the mark RATHI, the validity of the Trademark Agreements, and the permitted use of the mark. It also highlighted the plaintiff's....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant No.1, as a lineal male descendant of late G.D. Rathi, was bound by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding (....
The court emphasized the necessity of including all parties with direct interest in a suit for comprehensive adjudication, rejecting the exclusion based solely on prior dismissals.
The court affirmed that a necessary party is one whose presence is essential for the effective adjudication of a suit, and the trial court has the discretion to add such parties under Order I Rule 10....
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
