Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Judicial decisions frequently reference Rasik Lal's involvement in criminal, property, or procedural matters, highlighting his significance in various legal contexts.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Subodh VS Addl. District Sessions Judge No. 2, Deeg - Rajasthan"]- ["SUBHODH vs ADDI DISTRICT AND SESSION ORS - Rajasthan"]- ["ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI VS HARBANS LAL SHARAF - Delhi"]- ["Biresh Chandra Paul VS Samarendra Paul - Gauhati"]- ["Kamala Rani Namasudra & Ors. VS Sasthi Sarkar - Gauhati"]
In the competitive world of consumer goods like gutka, pan masala, and supari, trademark battles can make or break brands. One such high-stakes clash involves Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal, a key figure in multiple legal proceedings over the mark Manikchand. If you've ever wondered about the legal intricacies behind rasik lal manikchand, this post dives deep into the cases, court rulings, and lessons for businesses navigating trademark law in India.
These disputes highlight critical issues like prior use, deceptive similarity, and procedural pitfalls in passing-off suits. While outcomes favored the plaintiff in interim stages, they offer valuable guidance on evidence, injunctions, and appeals. Note: This is general information based on public judgments and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your situation.
Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal (also known as Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal), along with entities like Dhariwal Industries Ltd., faced lawsuits from M/s. M.S.S. Food Products. The plaintiff claimed rights to Malikchand since 1959-60, tracing use through assignments: from Prabhudayal Choubey to Ashok Sharma (1986), Kishore Vadhwani (1992), and finally to itself (1996). Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal VS M. S. S. Food Products - 2011 8 Supreme 350
Defendants countered with claims of using Manikchand since 1966, tied to family name, on similar products. They alleged forgery in plaintiff's documents and filed a counter-suit in Bombay High Court (Suit No. 574/2004). However, courts found prima facie deceptive similarity between the marks, granting interim injunctions against defendants' use. Dhariwal Industries LTD. VS M. S. S. Food Products - 2005 2 Supreme 450
The suit proceeded ex-parte against Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal after he filed a written statement but failed to produce evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or rebut plaintiff's affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC. Trial court decreed in plaintiff's favor based on unrebutted documents. Kaizen India VS Rangoli Garments Private Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2049
On appeal, the Supreme Court in Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S. Food Products (2012 (2) SCC 196) affirmed: where the plaintiff has tendered evidence by affidavit and the defendant did not cross-examine him despite several opportunities given to him and the Trial Court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence which remained unrebutted and unchallenged... it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Trial Court in decreeing the plaintiff’s Suit. Kaizen India VS Rangoli Garments Private Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 2049
This ruling underscores the weight of unrebutted evidence in ex-parte proceedings, a procedural trap for defendants.
Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal's application for Manikchand (Class 34) was refused by the Trade Marks Examiner, Mumbai (10.09.2003). Reasons included:- False ® claim.- Inconsistent applicant details (linked to Dhariwal Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd.).- Unsupported user since 1990: No any single document and affidavit in support of the user claim of applicant Mr. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal (proprietor) of M/s Manikchand Zarda since the year 1990... application is refused... under Sections 9 and 18(1). Dhariwal Industries Limited VS M. S. S. Food Products - 2004 0 Supreme(MP) 434
District Judge upheld, finding prior Malikchand use and dismissing forgery claims as trial matters. Post-1989 ads were deemed insufficient. Dhariwal Industries Limited VS M. S. S. Food Products - 2004 0 Supreme(MP) 434
A Rajasthan High Court case, Lal Manikchand Dhariwal and another vs M.S.S., referenced the Supreme Court decision in Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal's matter, reinforcing its precedential value in similar trademark skirmishes. SUBHODH vs ADDI DISTRICT AND SESSION ORS
Other mentions of Rasik Lal in unrelated contexts—like election disputes or criminal matters—do not connect to this IP saga, but they illustrate common naming in Indian jurisprudence, emphasizing the need for precise case research. Bishundeo Narain Singh VS Babulal Sah - 1971 Supreme(Pat) 100Raj Veer Singh VS State of U. P. - 2013 Supreme(All) 3222
Interim/ex-parte rulings bind pending full trial, where forgery and merits could be tested. No final ownership decision exists in these records—plaintiff's edge stemmed from better evidence and convenience balance. Dhariwal Industries LTD. VS M. S. S. Food Products - 2005 2 Supreme 450
In summary, the Rasik Lal Manikchand saga exemplifies how trademark law prioritizes evidence and procedure in passing-off claims. Businesses in FMCG should prioritize IP audits to sidestep such pitfalls. This analysis draws from key judgments; for tailored advice, engage IP specialists.
Disclaimer: This post summarizes public legal documents for educational purposes. Laws evolve, and outcomes depend on facts—seek professional counsel.
#TrademarkLaw #ManikchandCase #IPIndia
He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rasik Lal Manikchand Dhariwal and another v. M.S.S.
Lal Manikchand Dhariwal and another vs M.S.S. ... He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rasik
In the instant case, Harbans Lal was very well known to Rasik Lal G. Shah and it was a case of criminal conspiracy in which Charles Maloney, Rasik Lal G. Shah and Harbans Lal besides others were co-conspirators. ... Another letter that was recovered during the personal search of Rasik Lal G. Shah is Ex P. W. 13/E. This letter which bears the date June 25, 1992 was written by Rasik Lal G. ... Charles Maloney, on bei....
the Defendant No. 4, who as the only son of the only brother of Rajani Lal Sadhu, inherited all the landed properties of late Rajani Lal Sadhu, after his death. ... Rasik Das Vaishnab and that he had the saleable interest in respect of the land belonging to Rasik Das Vaishnab. ... He, however, stated that he did not know how much land was purchased by the father of the Defendant No. 1 from Rajani Lal Sadhu. ... No. 2 i.e. the khatian No. 119 reveals that the.75 acres of land covered by Dag No. 677 belon....
Marandi on the threat of Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka Marandi though as per the informant, Rasik Marandi went alongwith Nuni Rasik Marandi and had a talk with Rasik Marandi and thereafter went Rasik Marandi they shall also join them in the way. ... Nuni Hansda was not married with Rasik Marandi, but she was living as concubine with him.
Marandi on the threat of Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka Marandi though as per the informant, Rasik Marandi went alongwith Nuni Rasik Marandi and had a talk with Rasik Marandi and thereafter went Rasik Marandi they shall also join them in the way. ... Nuni Hansda was not married with Rasik Marandi, but she was living as concubine with him.
Nand Lal Paswan Son of Rasik Lal Paswan Resident of Village-Pai Pokhar, Police Station-Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga. 6. ... Sanjay Paswan Son of Rasik Lal Paswan Resident of Village-Pai Pokhar, Police Station-Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga. 7. ... Dewanand Paswan Son of Rasik Lal Paswan Resident of Village-Pai Pokhar, Police Station-Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga. 8. ... Umesh Lal Verma, APP ======================....
The long and short of the case is that a complaint was moved by the Rasik Lal-applicant on 29.03.2014 against Anil Kumar- mentioning therein that her minor daughter Ms. ... application, the applicant is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Session Judge, Mahoba in Criminal Revision No. 09 of 2022 (Rasik Lal Vs. State of U.P. ... . - 2083 of 2023 Applicant :- Rasik Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applica....
Besides, in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Rasik Lal Yadav V/s. ... Emphasis in the Rasik Lal Yadavs case Is that by reading the impugned order. ... ... 4 He then also submitted that in Rasik Lal Yadavs case there was no occasion for recount of the ballot papers with reference to the marked copy of the voters list as in the instant case. ... Prasad, J., who delivered the judgment in court in Rasik Lal Yedavs case, considered this aspect of t....
MANIKCHAND Son of Late Pyare Lal Resident of Mohalla - Arfabad Colony, P.S ... MANIKCHANDRA PRASAD @ MANIKCHAND PRASAD @ Naga Kumar @ Sonu @ Sonu Kumar Son of Manikchand Prasad @ p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin:0;padding
Misconduct is reduced to the breach of rule, from which breach injuries actionable or otherwise could reasonably be anticipated is depend upon each case. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation reported in (1985) 2 SCC 35 , (Para 5) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless either in the certified standing order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct. 80. In the case of Rasik Lal Vaghaji Bhai Patel vs.
Thus the enmity pleaded by the appellant has not been proved. Regarding the enmity it was pointed out that Babu Lodhi had fought election of Pradhanship against Rasik Lal. It is also said by the witness that the brother of the appellant namely Lallu had given Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. This witness supported Rasik Lal while the appellant supported Babu Lodhi. This fact was completely denied by the witness and there is nothing to show that this witness had supported Rasik Lal and the appellant had supported Babu Lodhi. The complainant supported Rasik Lal and ....
Regarding the enmity it was pointed out that Babu Lodhi had fought election of Pradhanship against Rasik Lal. This witness supported Rasik Lal while the appellant supported Babu Lodhi. Thus the enmity pleaded by the appellant has not been proved. The complainant supported Rasik Lal and the appellant supported Babu Lodhi. It is also said by the witness that the brother of the appellant namely Lallu had given Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. This fact was completely denied by the witness and there is nothing to show that this witness had supported Rasik Lal ....
2. Shri Rasik Lal Tribhuvan 3. Shri Kanti Lal Khokhani 4. Shri N. R. Vakharia. "
Reliance has also been placed on another case of Kerala High Court reported in the same volume- Kunju Raman vs. Krishna Iyer (3), in which also it has been held that the High Court should not interfere with interlocutory order of ordering a recount. Bhola Prasad (4) which was also a case of Election Tribunal ordering a recount in Panchayat election, in which the case the High Court refused to interfere with an interlocutory order. He has placed reliance on an unreported recent judgment of this Court in Surendra Kumar Vs. Mr. Rastogi has also placed reliance on Rasik Lal vs.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
