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

2003 Supreme(Raj) 190

N.N.MATHUR, SUNIL KUMAR GARG
Chunni Lal Baheti – Appellant
Versus
A. D. J. No. 1 & Anr. – Respondent


Appearance :
J.P. Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ashok Soni and Bhanu Mathur, Advocates, for the Respondents.

Judgment

N.N. Mathur, J.-We have heard Mr. J.P. Joshi learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ashok Soni learned counsel for the respondent cavetor.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant special appeal is not worth admission. That 2nd respondent Bharat Lal filed a suit under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur seeking injunction against the appellant to restrain him from using the registered trade mark BIC for which he was entitled to use exclusively. The Trial Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff , but the same was vacated by the learned single Judge of this Court. The matter was carried to the Apex Court. The Apex Court while dismissing the special leave to appeal by order dated 9.5.200 1 directed to Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the suit within six months. It is relevant to mention here that a rectification application was also filed by the appellant before the Gujarat High Court on 112.2000 for suitable amendment in the Registration Certificate. The said application for rectification is still





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