Karnataka Court September 1957 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Abdul Rahim Sahib Vs. G.S. Muthiah and Brothers and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-09-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant134; AIR1958Mys134; (1958)36MysLJ31
Nittoor Sreenivasa Rau, J. 1. The Appellant applied for the registration of his trade mark in respect of beedies falling under Clause 34 of Schedule 4 to the Trade Marks Rules. The Respondent opposed the registration and the opposition was upheld by the ex-officio Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Bangalore, and the registration was refused. The appeal is directed against this decision. 2. The Appellant's trade mark consists of A label containing the device of a pedestal supporting at its head five stems each carrying a rose, the stems being arranged fanwise. The words 'Aindu Roja Mark Beedi' (meaning five roses mark beedi) in the Tamil alphabet are found above the device. Another mark containing substantially the same device, but with the words 'Aindu Roja Poo Mark Beedi' (meaning five rose flower mark beedi) is to be found in the duplicate. It is the mark with the latter set of words that was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal. The Respondent's opposition was based onthe ground tha...
Srikantiah Setty and ors. Vs. Abdulla Basha Saheb and Co. and anr.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Sep-06-1957
Reported in: AIR1958Kant35; AIR1958Mys35; ILR1957KAR147
Somnath Iyer, J.1. On 18-3-1942, four creditors of one S. M. Zackria whom I shall hereafter refer to as the insolvent, made an application to the District Judge, Bangalore, under Section 9 of the Mysore Insolvency Act for getting him adjudged insolvent. On that application he was so adjudged insolvent on May 29, 1942.On July 7, 1942, the Official Receiver made an application (I. A. 2) under the provisions of Sections 5, 53 and 54 of the Act for a declaration that transfer made by the insolvent of his properties in favour of respondents 1 to 4 on January 5, 1942, and a subsequent transfer of those properties by respondents 1 to 4 in favour of the fifth respondent was voidable and should be annulled. He also added a further prayer to his application that the Court should direct the said properties or their value to be handed over to him by the respondents.2. Respondents 1 to 5 opposed that application and the learned District Judge allowed it. Respondents 1 to 4 have appealed and respond...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›