In our last post on the subject ‘The Rise and Fall of Super-Injunctions’, we had covered part I of the Article titled ‘The Rise and Fall of Super-Injunctions: Part I’. The said part contained the concept of super injunction and the origin of the same. The same is accessible here. This part contains issues and conflicts…
Jatinder Nath vs. Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Supreme Court AIR 2007 SC 1401 (Section 16 of CPC vis-à-vis Section 20 of CPC) Facts In this case, an agreement was entered into by the Developer with one Jatinder Nath (Appellant), residing at Faridabad at that time. Subsequently the appellant had shifted his residence…
Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs. DLF Universal and Anr.[1] Supreme Court (Section 16 of CPC vis-à-vis Section 20 of CPC) Facts In this case the appellant, Harshad Chiman entered into a ‘plot buyer agreement’ with DLF for purchase of a residential plot in Gurgaon, Haryana. According to the appellant, the agreement was made in Delhi….
Pfizer Products Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra and Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 301 Del Brief Facts: Plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction for passing off and unfair competition. Plaintiff had approached the Delhi High Court and claimed it’s jurisdiction to entertain and try the Plaintiff’s suit on account of two factors: (a) The first factor…
HAGUE CONVENTION OF 15 NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS (“CONVENTION”) Purpose of the Convention: Provides channel of transmission to be used when a judicial or extra judicial document is to be transferred from one state party to the convention to another state party for…
M/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited v. M/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Anr. 1997 (17) PTC 98 (SC) Question: whether the suit filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff) against the Respondents (Defendants) in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad being Original Suit No. 123 of 1982 was barred by the provisions of Order 2…
Dabur India Ltd. v. Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (61) PTC 304 (Del) Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of trade mark and passing off against the Defendant in respect of the mark ‘PACHMOLA’. Plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the mark ‘HAJMOLA’. An ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the Plaintiff. Later, the…
Berjesh Goyal and Anr. v. Daily Foods (India) 2009 (39) PTC 549 (Del) Respondent had filed a suit against the Petitioners in the Delhi High Court. The said suit was transferred to the district court by the High Court of Delhi. In the said suit, the Respondent’s witness had tendered his evidence being examination in…
In Navaneethammal vs. Ammakannammal and Ors.[1], the plaint included a claim which was prima facie untenable. However, such untenability of the claim was discovered only after the decision of the Federal Court. It is evident that the untenability of a claim is undoubtedly a reason for disallowing the same. However, if the Court happens to…
Importance of Registration Registration of a document gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuates documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain…
A foreign judgment which is conclusive under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can be enforced in India by: By filing an Execution Petition under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”)[1] (in case the conditions specified therein are fulfilled). By filing a suit upon the foreign judgment /decree.[2] In both…
CASE LIST Sarl Louis Feraud International vs. Viewfinder, Inc. No. 05-5927-CV, 2007 WL 1598057, 2nd Cir.(N.Y.) Compuserve, Inc. vs. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 (6th Cir. 1996) [Text] Zippo Manufacturing Co. vs. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997) [Text] Panavision International, L.P. vs. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998), aff’g 945…