REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

COMED CHEMICALS LTD. Appellant

V/S

USV Limited and 2 Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

RAMLAL VS. REWA COALFIELDS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MANINDRA LAND AND BUILDING CORPORATION LTD VS. BHUTNATH BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
MARTIN BUM LIMITED VS. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG VS. KATIJI [REFERRED TO]
N BALAKRISHNAN VS. M KRISHNAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL VS. SHYAMLAL [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SAO ALIAS RAM NATH SAHU VS. GOBARDHAN SAO [REFERRED TO]
S AMARJIT SINGH KALRA VS. PRAMOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO LTD VS. HIRA LAL SOMANI [REFERRED TO]
SAINIK SECURITY VS. SHEELA BAI [REFERRED TO]
C K PRAHALADA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. AHMED JAAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. ASHOK KUMAR CHOKHANI [REFERRED TO]
D D VAISHNAV VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. Y MOIDEEN KUNHI [REFERRED TO]
IMPROVEMENT TRUST LUDHIANA VS. UJAGAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. JAGDISH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BHOLA NATH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
PARIMAL VS. VEENA ALIAS BHARTI [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL GHAFOOR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MANIBEN DEVRAJ SHAH VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHAN MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
DEVINENI PADMAJA VS. VUNDAVALLI SRINIVASA RAO [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM KANA JOSHI VS. M.I.D.C [REFERRED TO]
ROHITASH KUMAR VS. OM PRAKASH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL GULABCHAND MUTHA VS. TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD [REFERRED TO]
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. VS. AMARDEEP ASSOCIATION ,NAVSARI [REFERRED TO]
MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
POPAT BAHIRU GOVARDHANE VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
ESHA BHATTACHARJEE VS. MANAGING COMMITTEE OF RAGHUNATHPUR NAFAR ACADEMY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BAL KISHAN MATHUR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ld. Advocate Ms. Megha Jani for the applicant and Ld. Sr. counsel Mr. PC Kavina with Ld. Advocate Mr. Sachin Vasavada and Mr. Samrat N Mehta for the opponent no. 1. opponent no. 2 though served, has remained absent. Whereas opponent no. 3 is deleted by the applicant. The applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 318 days caused in filing First Appeal against the judgment and order dated 20/12/2011 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 3533 of 2002. Such suit was filed by the opponent no. 1 for passing off their medicinal preparation and claiming special damages to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. By the impugned judgment, the suit was decreed in favour of the opponent no. 1 confirming prohibitory order against present applicant as well as opponent nos. 2 and 3 so as to restrain them from manufacturing, marketing and selling their product under the trademark "proloc". Original defendants are also directed to pay Rs. 1 lac by way of special damages to the plaintiff.

(2.) IN general, law of limitation is liberal and Courts are also liberal in condoning delay. However, opponent no. 1 herein has resisted the application firmly and filed their affidavit -in -reply with certain documents to show that there was no bonafide on the part of the applicant and there is no sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the application is required to be dealt with in detail.

(3.) CONSIDERING the reference of parties in the impugned judgment and record, it would be appropriate to refer them in their capacity before the trial Court, wherein present applicant is defendant no. 2, opponent nos. 2 and 3 are respectively defendant nos. 1 and 3 whereas present opponent no. 1 is original plaintiff.

Click here to view full judgment.

COMED CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. USV LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address