Follow:
- Next story In cases where the recommendations of the High Court collegium meets with the approval of the Supreme Court collegium and the Government, the appointments must take place within at least six months, said the Supreme Court recently.The bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph were
- Previous story The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to urgently hear a petition filed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) challenging the validity of a December 7 local bodies’ elections notification issued by the Tamil Nadu State Election Commission.
Recent Posts
- Justice kumares Babu Woman quits job over wrong information, Madras HC tells TNPSC to pay Rs 10 lakh
- வெளியிலும் நல்லவர்களா இருங்கள் நீதிபதி ஜெகதீஸ் சந்திரா
- M sunder judge தீர்ப்பு என்னை கவர்ந்த்து judge m s Ramesh
- நீங்களும் நீதிபதி ஆகலாம் நீதிபதி நிர்மல் குமார்
- Justice Senthilkumar saiad that the injunction continued to operate through the period in which the impugned mark was used and later registered. The Court also noted that the separate civil suit filed by the respondent in Karnataka could not alter the fact that the restraint order was in force and was being ignored. After considering the submissions and the evidence, the Court held that HUL’s application deserved acceptance. In the operative directions, the Court said: “the property in the name of the 1st respondent, namely Roopa Industries, shall be attached to the civil suit in C.S. No.427 of 2015 and the second respondent shall be detained in the civil prison for a period of three months.”
More
Recent Posts
- Justice kumares Babu Woman quits job over wrong information, Madras HC tells TNPSC to pay Rs 10 lakh
- வெளியிலும் நல்லவர்களா இருங்கள் நீதிபதி ஜெகதீஸ் சந்திரா
- M sunder judge தீர்ப்பு என்னை கவர்ந்த்து judge m s Ramesh
- நீங்களும் நீதிபதி ஆகலாம் நீதிபதி நிர்மல் குமார்
- Justice Senthilkumar saiad that the injunction continued to operate through the period in which the impugned mark was used and later registered. The Court also noted that the separate civil suit filed by the respondent in Karnataka could not alter the fact that the restraint order was in force and was being ignored. After considering the submissions and the evidence, the Court held that HUL’s application deserved acceptance. In the operative directions, the Court said: “the property in the name of the 1st respondent, namely Roopa Industries, shall be attached to the civil suit in C.S. No.427 of 2015 and the second respondent shall be detained in the civil prison for a period of three months.”