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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 6612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J
DASAPRAKASH RESTAURANT AND ICE CREAM PARLOUR PVT L – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt Ltd., 22, Chandra Path, Suraj Nagar, Suraj Nagar West, Civil Lines, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

..Petitioner Vs

1. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks Intellectual Property Office Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.

2. Shree Balakrishna Rao Represented by the Official Assignee, Office of the Official Assignee, High Court, Chennai 600 104.

3. K.Balaram Das (Deceased) No. 10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

4. Rama Das (Deceased)

No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

5. K.Bhagwan Das (Deceased)

No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 6. K.Narayan Das (Deceased) No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 7. K. Vijaya Das ( Deceased)

Represented by K.Vikram Das, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 8. K.Ram Vittal Das, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

9. K. Madhavamuni Das Represented By K. Ram Vittal Das No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

10.Mysore Dasaprakash Registered Partnership Firm, Gandhi Square, Mysore 570001.

11.K.Sumithra Das No.49-51, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai 600 084.

12.K.Vishnu Mohandas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

13.K.Bala Mukundadas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

14.K.Lakshminarayana Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

15.K.Latha Ramdas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 16.K.Raghu Ramdas No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 17.Kalyani Das Kuthethur No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 18.Bharathi Kuthethur No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

19.K.Anuradha B.Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

20.K.Dhananjaya Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

21.K.Shashabindu Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

22.K.Priya Prashanth No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

23.Kunethur Poornima No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

24.Kaimady Medhini Rao, No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

25.Bhakta Govinda Kuthethur Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai 600 084.

26.Kuthethur Pavanee No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 27.Kuthethur Sri Vasudeva Das No.49-51, Poonamallee High Road, 28.Vikram Das, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, 29.Madhavi Balal, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

30.Kamala Rao, No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

31.Vishwanath Das No.10, Raja Annamalai Road, Chennai 600 084.

32.Jayalakshmi No.33, Balfor Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. 33.Ganga Prasad No.33, Balfour Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010.

34.K.Kanthi, No.33, Balfour Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010.

35.P.Usha Rajendira No.33, Balfour Road, Kellys, Chennai 600 010 ..Respondents Review Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order XLVII Rule 1(a) and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to review the order dated 16.12.2025 in (T) CMA (TM) No.2 of 2023.

For Petitioner : Mr.Arun C Mohan For Respondents : Mr.C.Samivel, Senior Panel Counsel [R1]

*****

ORDER

This review petition has been filed to review the order passed by this Court in (T) CMA (TM) No.2 of 2023 dated 16.12.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the grounds raised in the review petition.

3. This Court while dismissing the appeal rendered a finding that when the Memorandum of Understanding was entered into on 16.01.2001, the appellant company was stillborn and it came into existence only on 17.01.2001. Therefore, this Court held that the Memorandum of Understanding dated 16.01.2001, at the best, can only be construed as an agreement to enter into a future agreement and that the agreement, by itself, did not create any right on the appellant company.

4. After rendering the above finding, apart from assigning other reasons, one of the reason assigned against the appellant company is that Balakrishna Rao was not a major shareholder and hence, he could not have transferred any right or title in favour of the appellant company since the requi

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top