BROUGHT  TO YOU  BY   RAJEEV BHATJIWALE

L AXMI GUDAKU FACTORY V / S AVINASH GUDAKU FACTORY 

 A. I. R.2000 M. P.305

Injunction against infringement of trademark can be given against the defendant who is using deceptive similar label as that of the plaintiff Both labels were bearing similar color scheme,design and phonetic similarity. There was the clear infringement of the trademark and the plaintiff is entitled to grant of temporary injunction 

.STATE BANK OF INDIA V /S VINDHYA TELELINKS LTD.1993 J.L.J. 240

On appearance of the defendant, when the jurisdiction of the court is challenged, the issue must be decided prior to the confirmation of the ex parte order of the injunction , because if a court has no jurisdiction over the matter brought before it,any injunction order passed by it will be treated as null and void. No rights are divested by a void judgment or order

Disobedience of the injunction order  passed by court having no jurisdiction,no consequences can follow, effective order can be passed by competent court having jurisdiction.

 MOOLCHAND V/S N K SATSANGI 1992 J.L.J. 340

Stage of issuance of interim injunction,maintainability of suit for want of jurisdiction cannot be gone into it has to be decided after the filing of the written statement The DB of M.P. high court in naresh saxena v/s President Adarsh nagarika sahakari bank 1986 J.L.J. note 6 has also confirmed that merits on the point of jurisdiction can only be seen after the filing of the W.S. 

GANESH PRASAD V / S NARENDRA LAL 1992 J.L.J. 710

Suit based on acquisition of title by adverse possession ,ingredients of adverse possession not even prima-facie established ,the refusal in granting the injunction is proper 

SUSHILA SINGH V/S VIJAY SHANKAR SHUKUL 1990 J L J 496

Relying on decision in MOHD. HAFIZ V/S NAZIBAN BIWI 1973 MPLJ SN 114and CHHITOO V/S SAKHARAM 1981 J L J 487 , it is clear that "anyparty" under order 39 rule [1] [a] is wide enough to cover the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, but the defendant's right to maintain an application is confined only to the cases where the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree.

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
Last modified: April 20, 2001