LAWS(GJH)-1998-5-7

TORRENT PHARMACEAUTICALS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 06, 1998
TORRENT LABORATORIES LIMITED Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against summary dismissal of Special Civil Application No. 8914 of 1997 by the learned single Judge on April 7, 1998.

(2.) The appellant is original petitioner. It was the case of the appellant that it was engaged in a business of manufacturing and marketing in Pharmaceuticals and Medicinal preparations for over two decades. It made an application for registration of Trade Mark VIREX on January 27, 1987 in respect of its medicinal and pharmaceuticals preparation. The said application was advertised in the Trade Journal on 1st January 1995. On 6th April 1995, the Welcome Foundation Ltd., respondent No. 3 herein filed a notice of opposition to the registration of the said Trade Mark in accordance with the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The appellant filed counter-statement on 10th October, 1995, a copy of which was served upon the respondent No. 3 on November 22, 1995. The third respondent was required to adduce evidence in support of his opposition within two months of the service of counter-statement under Rule 53 of the Rules. An application for extension of time was made by the third respondent to the second respondent on 10th January, 1996 which was granted by the second respondent. Further extensions were also granted. An interlocutory application filed by the third respondent for taking further evidence on record came to be allowed by the second respondent in the interest of justice. According to the appellant, the said action taken by the second respondent was contrary to law and in violation of Rule 53 of the Rules. The appellant, therefore, challenged the said action by filing the above petition.

(3.) After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge held that in granting interlocutory application of respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 had not committed any error of law, which required interference and accordingly dismissed the petition.