PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Puthiya Polivudan Puthiya Idathil Vivekananda Coaching Centre By its Proprietor T. V. Muthusamy – Appellant
Versus
Vivekananda Coaching Centre By its Proprietor S. Radhakrishnan – Respondent
1. The challenge by means of this Appeal by the defendant filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is to the impugned judgment of the dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, in O.S. No. 33 of 2012 decreeing the suit granting injunction restraining him from passing off action by way of running the coaching centre in the name and style of "Puthiya Polivudan Puthiya Idathil Vivekananda Coaching Centre".
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he is the Proprietor of Vivekananda Coaching Centre. It is stated that his father one A.Sellamuthu, who was employed in Sainik School, Amarvathi Nagar, as a Hostel Superintendent, entered into an agreement for sale on 25.7.1996 with one G.B. Gopinath and he was put in possession of the property on the same date. As per wish of his father, during December, 1997, the plaintiff started the educational institution in the suit property in the name and style of "Vivekananda Coaching Centre" housing the same at Door No. 15/81, near Forest Bungalow, Amaravathy Nagar, Udumalpet. Subsequently, a sale deed was executed on 22.7.1998 in favour of the plaintiff and his younger brother pursuant to the agreeme
V. Patel vs. Chetanbhai Shah and another [2002 (3) SCC 65]
Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [(2001) 5 SCC 73
M/s S.M. Dyecham Limited Vs. M/s Cadbury (India) Limited [AIR 2000 SC 2114]
Aravind Laboratories vs. V.A.Samy Chemical Works reported in 1994 (1) MLJ 174
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.