Search Results for "defendant's right"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Incredible Dying Declaration...
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Section 182 IPC for Lack of Val...

Search Results for "defendant's right"

5795 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 5795 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Plaintiff's Application for Decree of Possession Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC — No Clear Admission Found in Society's Letters. The court held that letters from the defendant society did not amount to unequivocal admissions of the plaintiff's ownership, and thus summary decree was not warranted.

5 Feb 2019

The plaintiff, Mahesh B. Chaudhary, filed a suit seeking possession of Flat No.17, 1st floor, Radha Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and a dec...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Temporary Injunction Against Defendant for Trademark Infringement and Passing Off of Identical Mark SPASGAN in Pharmaceutical Preparations. Plaintiff's Registered Trademark SPASGAN Entitled to Protection Under Trade Marks Act, 1999.

28 Jan 2014

The Plaintiff, Wockhardt Limited, filed a suit against Eden Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. seeking to prevent infringement and passing off of its trademark SPAS...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Land Ownership Dispute, Confirms Concurrent Findings of Trial and Appellate Courts. Suit for Declaration of Ownership and Possession of Agricultural Land Dismissed as Plaintiffs Failed to Prove Title and Possession.

9 Mar 2011

The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendant No.1, Babasaheb s/o Raosaheb Malba (Kadam), against the judgment and order of the Ad...

High Court

Bombay High Court Grants Injunction in Quia Timet Action for Passing Off Based on Distinctive Bottle Shape of Vodka. Shape of a bottle can be protected as a trademark or get-up if it has acquired distinctiveness and is likely to cause confusion.

2 May 2011

The plaintiff, Gorbatschow Wodka KG, a German company manufacturing Vodka, filed a quia timet action against John Distilleries Limited alleging that t...

High Court

Bombay High Court Considers Appeal in Trade Mark Infringement Case Where Corporate Name Used for Dissimilar Goods. Court Examines Whether Section 29(4) or 29(5) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 Applies When Registered Mark Is Part of Tradename for Unrelated Pharmaceuticals.

13 Jul 2010

The appeal arose from a suit filed by Raymond Limited (plaintiff) against Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (defendant) for trade mark infringement. T...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Amendment to Plaint in Suit for Specific Performance — Period of Bona Fide Prosecution of Earlier Proceedings Excluded for Limitation Under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. The court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint to seek exclusion of time spent in prosecuting a suit and appeal in the Small Causes Court, holding that such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy and does not change the nature of the suit.

10 May 2013

The plaintiff, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL), filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants in the Bombay High Court. The su...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Upholds Injunction in Trademark Infringement Case — 'Cothagiri' Mark Deceptively Similar to 'Cothas'. Defendant restrained from using mark 'cothagiri' for coffee products as it is phonetically and structurally similar to plaintiff's registered trademark 'Cothas'.

14 Sep 2016

The case involves a trademark infringement dispute between two coffee companies. The appellant, M/s Avighna Coffee Pvt. Ltd., was the defendant in the...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Examines Application of Order XXIII Rule 3A CPC to Suit by Non‑Party Seeking Declaration That Compromise Decree is Not Binding. The appellant, a religious math, challenged the rejection of its plaint which alleged that a compromise decree was fraudulent and collusive, thus not binding on it.

18 Mar 2025

The dispute centered on a property originally allotted to S. Narayana by the Bengaluru Development Authority in 1973, with a sale deed executed in 199...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Delivers Judgment in Regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC Regarding Poojaraki Rights and Injunction. Appeal Filed by Defendants Against Concurrent Decrees of Lower Courts Partly Decreeing Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

24 Feb 2023

The case concerned a dispute among the Bhavi family members, who are hereditary pujaris of the Prabhudev temple in Terdal, Jamakhandi. The plaintiffs,...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Eviction Suit Against MSEB in Rent Control Dispute — State Government Not the Tenant. The court held that MSEB was the tenant and the suit was maintainable, setting aside the concurrent decrees of the lower courts.

17 Dec 2024

The petitioner, The Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (HSBC), filed a writ petition challenging the concurrent judgments of the Small C...

50 51 52 53 54

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)