SAHNI SONS MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Narula, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, does not press the objection that an alternative remedy by way of an Appeal is available and secondly, that Delhi ought to exercise territorial jurisdiction. In these circumstances I need not go into the question of alternative remedy by way of an Appeal even though the statute and the Rules have themselves not been followed. The grievance of the Petitioner is that his Objections have been dismissed without grating any personal hearing to the Petitioner. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Shri K.K. Sharma, Deputy Registrar in the Trade Marks Registry at Mumbai in the matter of Sanyo Electric Company Limited v. Paryaldas Mahlyomal Dhanwani, in which it has been held that a notice must be issued to the Objector before his Objections are disposed of. The matter however, does not rest here. In Kamlesh Thukral v. Central Government, 2003 (26) PTC 423 (Del), my learned Brother, A.K. Sikri, J., had specifically directed that the Respondent must, while dealing with Objections, having regard to their own ruling in Sanyo Electric Limited case, grant an opportunity of being heard to the Objectors. I do not propose to go into the merits of the case. However, succinctly stated, the Petitioner's contention is that he had dispatched his Objection from Delhi and had received the Trade Marks Journal at Delhi on 27.3.2005, since they were dispatched from Mumbai on 24.3.2005. If time is reckoned from 27.3.2005 the Objections would be within time.

(2.) Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to grant a personal hearing to the Petitioner on 12.4.2006 or any other date at the convenience of the Respondents.

(3.) Nothing in these Orders shall bind the Respondents on the merits of the case, including the question of Objections being barred by limitation.