GUPTA ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. GREAT ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated the 21st November 1963.

(2.) Messrs Great Electrical Engineering Work, Meerut City applied for registration of trade mark GEEW, to the Registrar of Trade Marks Under application No. 190,766 dated 17th June 1959. Gupta Engineering Works the appellant in this appeal filed an opposition under No. DEL 147 on the 24th July 1962. When the matter came up for hearing before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks on the 21st November, 1963, Mr. K. G. Bansal, learned counsel for the appellant withdraw the opposition and the Assistant Registrar ordered that the Said opposition be treated as withdrawn and the said application be proceeded to registeration." The appeal came up for hearings before Bedi, J. on the 27th November, 1964, and his Lordships passed the following order :

(3.) Mr. Brijbans Kishore learned counsel for the appellant submits that Mr. K. G. Bansal, Advocate, acted without authority in withdrawing the opposition and consequently the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks is based on unauthorised withdrawal of opposition on behalf of the appellant. The appellant also moved an application under Section 97(c) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi and one of the grounds taken in support of the application for review was that Mr. Bansal had no authority to withdraw the opposition. It is rather amazing that having made the application for review no one appeared on behalf of the appellant in support on behalf of the appellant in support of the application on the 16th of January 1965, the date fixed for hearing. It is pointed outthat a request was made on behalf of the appellants counsel on the 15th of January 1965 for adjournment of the matter but since the request was declined no one appeared on that date without going into the merits of the question whether or not the request was properly declined by the Assistant Registrar. I must say that the appellant acted with extreme negligence in the matter. In dismissing the said application for review the learned Assistant Registrar of trade Marks observed that in the opposition proceedings the petitioners (opponants) were represented by Mr. K. G. Bansal, Advocate on the strength of the power of attorney duly executed in his favour. Such power of attorney authories and an advocate to become petitioner's agent for taking proceedings, and withdrawal of opposition, in my opinion, is one of the functions covered by this authorization. Accordingly Shri K. G. Bansall in withdrawing the opposition acted within the scope of authorization granted to him. If the Petitioner had given instructions to the Advocate not to withdraw the opposition he should have incorporated the same in the power of authorisation or specifically written about it to the Registry.