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

D.S.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, S.RAJARATNAM
Srinivasa Raghava Iyengar – Appellant
Versus
Income-tax Officer – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P. Viswanthan,S. Renganathan

ORDER
S. Rajaratnam, Accountant Member -The assessee was a registered firm carrying on the business in manufacture and sale of fertilisers under the trade name "Premier Fertilisers" at Ootacamund since about 1943. In 1960 a company by name "Premier Fertilizers Ltd." with a share capital of about a crore of rupees with one of its branches at Ootacamund had started business. Since the name was the same, but for the addition of the word 'limited', the assessee apparently feared that its business will be affected and sought permanent injunction against Premier Fertilizers Ltd. from carrying on business in that name for the reason that the use of the name is likely to mistake or deceive the public into the belief that the "defendants" company is the same as that of the "plaintiff " Premier Fertilizer Concern. The assessee succeeded before the Sixth Assistant Judge, in the City Civil Court in the suit, which raised the following four issues:

1. Have the plaintiffs acquired any right over the name Premier Fertilizers?

2. Are the plaintiffs manufacturing any fertilizer or marketing in the name of Premier Fertilizers?

3. Had the defendants any knowledge of the plaintiffs name when the defendant













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