Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act 2006 Section 15 Offences To Be Cognizable And Non Bailable - Judgment Search Results

M. Janaki Vs. K. Vairamuthu

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... years of age 8 though section 15 of the prohibition of child marriage act 2006 informs offences there against to be cognizable and non bailable section 3 makes provision for avoidance of marriage by contracting party who was a child at the time thereof .....

ismail K.K. Vs. Ibrahim Haji

Court : Kerala

..... on the basis of a private complaint filed under sections 10 and 11 of the prohibition of child marriage act 2006 briefly put quot the act quot case borne out from the complaint is that ..... the petitioners would further contend that the scheme of the act especially section 15 of the act would show that despite the offence is cognizable and non bailable one a private complaint will not lie it is .....

B.L. and Co. and Others Vs. Pfizer Products Incl.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 93(2001)DLT346

party being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay the party which invokes 27 2 amp 106 of the trade and merchandise marks act 1958 it was held that while the delay in at while the delay in institution of a suit for an action for passing off may not be fatal it is one interim injunction restraining the manufacturing marketing medicinal product penegra under sections 106 amp 27 2 of the trade and merchandise marks a year even had not been held to be fatal 15 learned counsel also argued that it was common knowledge that s product was priced approximately at 10 in fact the non feasibility of selling the respondents products at indian prices was

Novelty Emporium Vs. Novelty Creation Private Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 96(2002)DLT68

customer and the reasoning of this court while granting the injunction was as under but when the two names are pronounced sub section 2 to section 9 of the indian partnership act 6 the law with respect to the action in passing as the defendant 6 the law with respect to the action in passing off is well settled it is well known of injunction on use of a generic name as per sections 27 2 and 106 of the trade and merchandise marks distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff emphasis added 15 in the present case the word novelty must be taken an action for passing off but is the sine qua non in the case of an action for infringement in an

New Hope Food Industries (P) Limited Rep. by Its Managing Director, Mr ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : LC2008(1)173; (2008)3MLJ575; 2008(36)PTC400(Mad)

of the main suit therefore while granting the relief of injunction in favour of the appellant as prayed for in their prima facie evidence of validity section 31 of trade mark act 1999 held as per section 31 in all legal proceedings engineering co 1970 2scr222 the apex court observed that the action for infringement is a statutory right and it is dependent and ors v municipal corporation of greater mumbari and ors 2006 5scc282 the apex court laid down the salient principles governing the registration and subject to other restrictions laid down in sections 30 34 and 35 of the trade marks act 32 at the rate of rs 20 lakhs on or before 15th february every year and such amount has to be deposited allowed civil grant of interlocutory injunction discretionary power of court non exercise of whether the learned single judge while rejecting the

Pawan Kumar Atmaram Saboo and anr. Vs. Saboo Collections

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR212; 2002(24)PTC27(Bom)

of the said grudge they filed the present suits for injunction against them and therefore this conduct of the appellants disentitles passing off action governed by section 105 c of the act it would therefore lie only in the district court para and bros ltd a company registered under the english companies act by its duly constituted attorney harvy godfrey bombay reported in the above view jagannath singh v dr ajay upadyay anr 2006 cri lj 4274 2006 5 air bom r held per are passing off claims and both would stand covered by section 105 c of the act para 9 considering the provisions to the facts of the present case as discussed below 15 in shri gopal engg chemical works v pomx laboratory air is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence if the legislature has taken

Power Control Appliances and ors. Vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1994(2)SC70; 1994(1)SCALE446; (1994)2SCC448; [1994]1SCR708

should given the court in granting or withholding a temporary injunction in trade mark infringement actions are well settled see recent relief at the hearing patching v subbins 1843 kay 1 child v douglas 1854 5 de gm g 739 johnson v concurrent user found in section 12 3 of the 1958 act for securing concurrent registration is totally irrelevant as defence in in a trade mark trade name etc it implies positive acts not merely silence or inaction such as is involved in of electrolux was a sufficient use for the purpose of section 26 1 of electrux seeing that the two marks were to relief at the hearing colman v farrow co 1898 15 r p c 198 hoover ltd v air way ltd 30 1 b of the 1958 act this act creates offences for such infringement under sections 78 and 29 section 96 learned judge refers to the documents filed by the respondent none of these documents throw any light as to the manufacture

Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)472; AIR2002SC117; 2002(3)BomCR686; [2002(1)JCR228(SC)]; JT2001(9)SC525; 2001(8)SCALE174; (2002)2SCC147

three learned judges considered the question of grant of interlocutory injunction under order 39 rule 1 code of civil procedure in procedure in a case under section 29 2 of the act and section 55 of the copy right act 1957 and name as that of the plaintiff and to take appropriate action against the defendant the defendant in its reply to the rule 1 code of civil procedure in a case under section 29 2 of the act and section 55 of the appeal is dismissed with costs hearing fee assessed at rs 15 000 intellectual property rights passing off sections 105 and 106

Structural Waterproofing and ors. Vs. Mr. Amit Gupta and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 93(2001)DLT496

that it will suffer irreparable loss and injuries in case injunction is refused 18 apart from this section 10 cpc also 106 29 amp 44 of the trade and merchandise marks act 1958 the challenge was discussed in regards to the validity the heirs of the original registered proprietor to bring an action for infringement of the trade mark such an action is been challenged as it is barred by the provisions of section 10 cpc that place embargo upon the court to proceed no more enforceable or in operation 4 that even on 15 6 2001 plaintiff is shown as registered proprietor of trade the validity of memorandum of understanding either on facts or non registration of an assignment does not prima facie entitle the

Casio India Co. Limited Vs. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 106(2003)DLT554; 2003(70)DRJ742; 2003(27)PTC265(Del); 2003(3)RAJ506

its domain name prima facie case made out by plaintiff injunction granted as prayed for defendant has failed to disclose any the trade mark and brand name casio besides no positive act on the part of the casio japan or plaintiff has 39 rules 1 amp 2 the suit relates to an action of passing off in respect of a domain name of for rendition of accounts suit is said to be under sections 105 and 106 of the trade and merchandise marks act the last name as avinash johri the address given is 152 modi street second floor shahin apartments mumbai the registration was