RAJA SOAP FACTORY Vs. S P SHANTHARAJ
LAWS(SC)-1965-1-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
January 20,1965
RAJA SOAP FACTORY
Appellant
VERSUS
S.P.SHANTHARAJ
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
VIDYA SHANKER TIWARI VS. SURYA KANT TIWARI [LAWS(ALL)-2013-8-1] [REFERRED TO]AMINA BHARATRAM VS. SUMANT BHARATRAM AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAN SEBASTIAN D’SOUZA VS. SAROJINI A KUNDER OF BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
V. R. HOLDINGS VS. HERO INVESTOCORP LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2023-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUKUMAR VS. ALOHA INDIA A DIVISION OF K K ACADEMY P LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATHAR VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2021-2-283] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH AGARWAL SINCE DECEASED THR LRS & ORS VS. VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANR [LAWS(SC)-2018-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
BMIC LIMITED VS. CHINNAKANNAN SIVASANKARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAMA ENGINEERING WORKS [LAWS(PAT)-1973-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
M P MISHRA VS. SANGAM LAL AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-1975-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
DALLAH ALBARAKA INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS. AJITABH BACHCHAN [LAWS(BOM)-1999-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
C GANGADHARA MURTHY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1994-4-31] [REFERRED TO]
I.D. SHARMA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-1981-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
ESCORTS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD VS. GAUTAM ENGINEERING CO [LAWS(J&K)-2008-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
Sundaram Finance Limited VS. M K Kurian [LAWS(MAD)-2006-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
S. ANNAPOORNI VS. K. VIJAY [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-236] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHUL HAQUE VS. ABDUL MABOOD [LAWS(ALL)-1987-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL VS. RAMAN LAL [LAWS(ALL)-1977-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
AWADH KUMAR PRADHAN VS. FIRST CIVIL JUDGE KANPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1982-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
SHALAN NARAYAN DAPPAL VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-61] [REFERRED TO]
SOUTHERN ROADWAYS LTD VS. C PALANIKUMAR [LAWS(MAD)-1989-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR DAMANI VS. RAMNARAIN AGARWAL [LAWS(CAL)-1983-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
CHOTE MIYAN VS. IQBAL BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-1999-7-127] [REFERRED TO]
SANGEETA B KADAM VS. BALKRISHNA RAMCHANDRA KADAM [LAWS(BOM)-2005-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
HARESH OCTROI CO VS. S RAMABHADRAN [LAWS(GJH)-1979-11-21] [REFERRED]
ESCORTS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LIMITED VS. GAUTEM ENGINEERING COMPANY AND ANR. [LAWS(J&K)-2009-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [LAWS(SC)-1988-4-69] [RELIED ON]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [LAWS(SC)-1988-4-69] [RELIED ON]
SANJOY MENON RAJAN VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2005-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MIN ISTRY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(PAT)-1997-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
BANGUR BROTHERS LIMITED AND ORS. VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-2-113] [REFERRED TO]
SRIDHAR DECD VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [LAWS(ALL)-1985-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
A P VERMA PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE U P AND VS. U P LABORATORY TECHNICIANS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(ALL)-1998-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
CHATRABHUJ MAVJI MERCHANT VS. SUMATI MORARJEE [LAWS(BOM)-1991-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
ROMILA JAIDEV SHROFF VS. JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF [LAWS(BOM)-2000-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
MARIA SERA PINTO VS. MILTON DIAS [LAWS(BOM)-2000-8-74] [REFERRED TO]
MEGAL MARKUS PEREIRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM VS. STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2007-2-93] [REFERRED TO]
SHALAN W/O NARAYAN DAPPAL VS. SONUBAI [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-236] [REFERRED]
KHAJA EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. STATE FB [LAWS(KAR)-1993-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
VARSHABEN BATUKBHAI MAKWANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH PRASAD VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDESHWAR YUVAK MANDAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-1981-8-61] [REFERRED TO]
RAM JETHMALANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN VS. HARYANA STATE AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2002-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA VS. IVORY PROPERTIES [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS. STERLITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2019-2-107] [REFERRED TO]
D.N.SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PATNA [LAWS(PAT)-2010-4-642] [REFERRED TO]
BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY VS. HONOURABLEBLE SPEAKER, RAJASTHAN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
VIKRANT FORGE LIMITED AND ORS. VS. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
Hindusthan Lever Limited VS. Tata Oil Mills and Allied Companies Karmachari Union [LAWS(CAL)-1995-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. HANSA CHEMICAL PHARMACY [LAWS(DLH)-1978-11-8] [REFERRED TO]
DWARKA PRASAD BAJAJ VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-1979-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
ASRA ESTATES LIMITED VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-2007-12-104] [REFERRED]
SHATROHAN SINGH VS. DISTRICT DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, RAE BARELI [LAWS(ALL)-1967-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNO DEVI VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2000-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
S.K. PANDIT AND ORS. VS. SREEKRISHNA SWAMY DEVASWOM AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-6-123] [REFERRED TO]
SPEAKER HARYANA VIDHAN SABHA VS. KULDEEP BISHNOI [LAWS(SC)-2012-9-63] [REFERRED TO]
VIVA HIGHWAYS LTD. VS. MADHYA PRADESH ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
CHENNAI ANANDA BHAVAN, KERALA VS. ADYAR ANANDA BHAVAN SWEETS & SNACKS [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: ANTHONY FERNANDES AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(BOM)-1992-10-80] [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONY FERNANDES VS. N R [LAWS(BOM)-1992-12-36] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESWAR SWAIN VS. BIDYUT PROBHA ART PRESS [LAWS(CAL)-1970-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
PRUDENTIAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. VS. A.P. COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL AT MJ MARKET, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2014-12-76] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDBHAI PARSHOTTAMDAS PATEL VS. NEW SHORROCK MILLS NADIAD [LAWS(GJH)-1983-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRADYUMNA PATTNAIK VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2022-11-110] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR PATEL.R VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-352] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION TIS HAZARI COURT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(SC)-1991-9-36] [DISTINGUISHED]
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION BOMBAY VS. R P GUNDU [LAWS(BOM)-1983-2-41] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASHINI MALIK VS. S.K. GANDHI & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-123] [REFERRED TO]
Sadhna Sharma VS. Premlata Gautam [LAWS(DLH)-2005-9-143] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH SWAMI VS. RAMDEO [LAWS(ALL)-2000-1-113] [REFERRED TO]
SHRABANTI DAS VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
M V ELISABETH M V ELISABETH VS. HARWAN INVESTMENT AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED HANOEKAR HOUSE SWATONTAPETH VASCO DE GAMA GOA: HARWAN INVESTMENT AND TRADING CO [LAWS(SC)-1992-2-36] [DISTINGUISHED]
SHAMIM ALAM VS. DINESH AGGARWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2009-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Shah, J. -
(1.)On May 5, 1964 the respondents hereinafter called 'the plaintiffs' - instituted in the High Court of Mysore an action in the nature of a passing off action against the appellants hereinafter called 'the defendants'-- for a declaration that they are "exclusive owners of the trade mark consisting of the letters R.S.F. and No. 806", for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their washing soap as the goods of the plaintiffs and for incidental reliefs.
(2.)By S. 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958 a passing of action whether the trade mark is registered or unregistered may be instituted in any Court not inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. It appears that on May 5, 1964 the District Court of Mysore, within the territorial limits of which the cause of action was alleged to have arisen, was closed for the summer vacation, and it is common ground that on that day there was no Judge functioning in the District Court who was on duty and competent to exercise the powers of the District Court. At the request of the plaintiffs the High Court entertained the plaint and also an application for interim injunction restraining "the defendants, their agents or servants from using the trade mark R.S.F. on washing soap manufactured by them and from selling washing soap bearing the said offending mark pending disposal of the case. " By order dated May, 29, 1964 the High Court granted the temporary injunction in terms of the prayer in the application.
(3.)In this appeal with special leave, counsel for the defendants argues that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action instituted by the plaintiffs and had no power to make an order issuing a temporary injunction. The action, as framed, could properly be instituted in the District Court. The expression "District Court" has by virtue of S. 2(e) of Act 43 of 1958 the meaning assigned to that expression in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 2(4) of the Code defines a "district" as meaning the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court - called the District Court - and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. If, therefore, a High Court is possessed of ordinary original civil jurisdiction, it would, when exercising that jurisdiction be included, for the purpose of Act 43 of 1958, in the expression "District Court".
(2.)By S. 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 43 of 1958 a passing of action whether the trade mark is registered or unregistered may be instituted in any Court not inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. It appears that on May 5, 1964 the District Court of Mysore, within the territorial limits of which the cause of action was alleged to have arisen, was closed for the summer vacation, and it is common ground that on that day there was no Judge functioning in the District Court who was on duty and competent to exercise the powers of the District Court. At the request of the plaintiffs the High Court entertained the plaint and also an application for interim injunction restraining "the defendants, their agents or servants from using the trade mark R.S.F. on washing soap manufactured by them and from selling washing soap bearing the said offending mark pending disposal of the case. " By order dated May, 29, 1964 the High Court granted the temporary injunction in terms of the prayer in the application.
(3.)In this appeal with special leave, counsel for the defendants argues that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the action instituted by the plaintiffs and had no power to make an order issuing a temporary injunction. The action, as framed, could properly be instituted in the District Court. The expression "District Court" has by virtue of S. 2(e) of Act 43 of 1958 the meaning assigned to that expression in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 2(4) of the Code defines a "district" as meaning the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court - called the District Court - and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. If, therefore, a High Court is possessed of ordinary original civil jurisdiction, it would, when exercising that jurisdiction be included, for the purpose of Act 43 of 1958, in the expression "District Court".
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.