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

1999 Supreme(MP) 951

SHAMBHOO SINGH
Habib – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
N.S. Purohit for applicant; P. Meetta for non-applicant No.5;
Saraswat for non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4; A. Salim for State.

ORDER

1. This order shall govern the disposal of MCRC No. 2135/90 arising out of Cr. case No. 2165/86. MCRC No. 2136/90 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2167/86 & MCRC No. 2137/90 arising out of Cr. Case No. 2166/86 pending in the Court of C.J. M. Ratlam as common question of law and facts are involved.

2. The prosecution case is that Habib. the supervisor of Kirloskar Oil Engine Proprietary Ltd.. Pune, found that the respondents in all the three cases were having engine parts hearing false trade mark of this company in their possession and were selling the same representing that these parts were manufactured by tile company and thereby they were inducing the purchasers to purchase them. He himself purchased some parts from the respondents. Exper examined them and opined that the parts purchased and seized from the possession of the respondents were spurious and were not manufactured or supplied by tile company. they bore false trade mark of the company. He lodged written complaint at P.S. Station Road Ratlam where offence u/s 420 IPC was registered. During investigation some parts were seized and were sent for examination. After investigation, challans were filed against the respondents







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