Taluka Panchayat, Visnagar Vs. Ichhaben Shivram Dave - Court Judgment |
SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/674523 |
Subject | Labour and Industrial |
Court | Supreme Court of India |
Decided On | Oct-29-1996 |
Judge | J.S. Verma and; B.N. Kirpal, JJ. |
Reported in | (2002)IVLLJ994SC |
Appellant | Taluka Panchayat, Visnagar |
Respondent | ichhaben Shivram Dave |
Excerpt:
- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. order 39, rules 1 & 2: [b.p. singh & h.s. bedi, jj] grant of injunction - infringement of trademark and copyright trademark in question used by predecessors of plaintiff since 1940 challenge is to identical mark and packaging used by defendant from the year 2000 suit filed in the year 2003 held, it is not a ground for refusal to exercise discretion in favour of claim for interim relief. in the instant case supreme court granted interim injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from using the trademark glucose-d. - supreme court set aside decision of high court on ground of concealment of facts and failure of high court to take into consideration documents filed by appellants.the text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedrespondent terminated from services as she had crossed age of superannuation. appeal before district development officer dismissed. respondent raised labour dispute in labour court concealing facts of earlier litigation. respondent reinstated with back wages. appeal dismissed by high court. supreme court set aside decision of high court on ground of concealment of facts and failure of high court to take into consideration documents filed by appellants.
Judgment:The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronounced
Respondent terminated from services as she had crossed age of superannuation. Appeal before District Development Officer dismissed. Respondent raised labour dispute in Labour Court concealing facts of earlier litigation. Respondent reinstated with back wages. Appeal dismissed by High Court. Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court on ground of concealment of facts and failure of High Court to take into consideration documents filed by appellants.