Professional Documents
Culture Documents
APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 83 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2796 of 2012 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 83 of 2012
================================================= UNIVERSAL SKIN IMPLEX PVT LTD - Appellant(s) Versus G M BELL HEALTH CARE PVT LTD - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. with MR ARPIT A KAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1,
1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.N. Soparkar and perused the record with his assistance. It is submitted that the trial Court granted ad interim exparte injunction in RCS No. 2 of 2012 relying essentially on the order passed in R.C.S. No.29 of 2008 against the then defendant Universal Farma restraining it from using and committing the
act of passing off of the plaintiff's trade mark in the name of 'Colbet-GM', 'Fungdid-B' and 'ENAC-GEL' till the final disposal of the suit and said order of injunction was stayed by this Court (Coram:M.D.Shah, J. ), initially on dated 26.11.2010 in Appeal From Order No. 348 of 2010 and the same was extended upto 8.12.2010. Thereafter with the consent of both the sides, on 8.2.2011, the same was confirmed till the hearing of Appeal from Order No.348 of 2010 at the request of learned advocates of both the sides and the Appeal from Order dated 348 of 2010 was directed to be placed on Board for final hearing on 26.4.2011. However, as mentioned by the learned counsel, the said hearing has not taken place till date. 2. In other words, the order of injunction granted in earlier civil suit, and solely depended upon by the Court while granting ex parte ad interim relief, has been stayed by this Court from 26.11.2010. It is further pointed out that there does not appear to be any other reason given by the Court while granting such relief in favour of the respondent original plaintiff. 3. Provision of order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the well laid down principle of the Supreme Court as enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivkumar Chadda vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 1993 G.L.H. 778, make it incumbent upon the Court to record the reasons before such order is passed. Again, while exercising extraordinary powers vested in the Court before grant of such exparte injunction before issuance of notice, the Court must note reasons that delay would defeat the very purpose of grant of such stay. This case since is covered by the
judgment rendered in case of Patel Jasmat Sangaji vs. The Gujarat Electricity Board and others reported in 1982 G.L.H.463, this Court requires to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 1.3.2012, till the next date. 4. Notice is made returnable on 9.3.2012. Direct service permitted today.
S.No Name of the Respondents 1.1.0 G M BELL HEALTH CARE PVT LTD Registered On : 06/03/2012 Bench Category : SINGLE BENCH Origin Code Disposal Date Court : 21 No Office Objection : ADVOCATE : 09/03/2012
Decided By MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI : WHETHER COPIES ARE LEGIBLE AND WHETHER TYPED COPIES OF HAND WRITTEN ANNEXURES FILED ? Not Before - ***Not Available***
Classification : CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 FIRST APPEALS FROM ORDER Lower Case Details S.No Case Details Lower Court Jud. Date FIR FIR PoliceStation No Date -
1 RCS/2/2012
DISTRICT COURT, AHMEDABAD CITY, 01/03/2012 0 AHMEDABAD CITY Court Fee Details Document Type MEMO OF PETITION VAKALATNAMA Ct. Fee 10 5
06/03/2012
OLR 2 MR ARPIT A KAPADIA Connected Matters - ***Not Available*** Application Matters Status DISPOSED Disposal Date/Next Date 09/03/2012 Judge SGG,J
S.No 1
Judgement/Order ORDER
Coram SGG,J
AO/83/2012