J.C.UPADHYAYA
Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
West Coast Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. – Respondent
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The challenge in this Appeal From Order is to the order dated 23.1. 2012 passed by the Ld. Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Notice of Motion Exs. 6/7 and 16 in Civil Suit No. 2800/2011. The Ld. City Civil Judge [hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’] by impugned order dated 23.1.2012 dismissed the temporary injunction application filed by the appellant original plaintiff and further ordered that the ad interim relief earlier granted in the said matter stood vacated forthwith. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. the original plaintiff preferred this appeal. Therefore, the appellant is original plaintiff and the respondents are original defendants and for the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondents shall be hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff and ‘the defendants’ in this judgment.
2. The plaintiff filed the above referred suit against the defendants seeking decree for permanent injunction as well as the decree for damages directing the defendants to give true and correct account of manufacturing and sale of the product under the trademark “ACICAL” to the trial Court a
Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. M.S.S. Food Products
Matrix Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. Matric Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd.
S.M. Dyechem Ltd. v. Cadbury (India) Ltd.
M/s. Ciba Geigy Ltd. v. M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Swiss Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.