w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Lakshmi Sriniavasa Rice Mills, Rep. by its Partners, K. Kallappa v/s Lakshmi Srinivas Industries, Rep. by its Partners, T. Nageswara Rao, Raichur & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- T T G INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PLC014169

Company & Directors' Information:- V I P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L25200MH1968PLC013914

Company & Directors' Information:- A L M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14100DL1996PLC129067

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17121MH1991PLC257750

Company & Directors' Information:- S R INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L29246PB1989PLC009531

Company & Directors' Information:- F E INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36100PB2003PTC026482

Company & Directors' Information:- N K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L91110GJ1987PLC009905

Company & Directors' Information:- T S I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U18101HR1997PTC034478

Company & Directors' Information:- THE LAKSHMI MILLS COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17111TZ1910PLC000093

Company & Directors' Information:- H G I INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L40200WB1944PLC011754

Company & Directors' Information:- R P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100GJ2011PTC075812

Company & Directors' Information:- J P P MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2003PTC010491

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1974PLC007169

Company & Directors' Information:- A G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27300HR1991PTC031378

Company & Directors' Information:- H. J. INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120GJ2010PTC060769

Company & Directors' Information:- G R S INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00000PB2005PLC029159

Company & Directors' Information:- T S L INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L65999WB1994PLC065255

Company & Directors' Information:- V S P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011820

Company & Directors' Information:- M N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100TG2012PTC079737

Company & Directors' Information:- G I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2010PTC033806

Company & Directors' Information:- E T C INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31200MP1995PLC009281

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC045572

Company & Directors' Information:- S R V E INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U03210TZ2006PLC012577

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21010MH1992PLC068885

Company & Directors' Information:- N G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L74140WB1994PLC065937

Company & Directors' Information:- S L INDUSTRIES P. LTD. [Active] CIN = U15331WB1989PTC047543

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909AS1985PLC002332

Company & Directors' Information:- V M D MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1994PTC004822

Company & Directors' Information:- T R A T INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PLC010148

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1995PLC067120

Company & Directors' Information:- A R C MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1994PTC004845

Company & Directors' Information:- N M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175664

Company & Directors' Information:- S N L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17115RJ1994PTC008053

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA RICE LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U01111KL1994PLC008050

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND Y MILLS LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U17111TZ1994PLC005460

Company & Directors' Information:- R S RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15319UP1998PTC023610

Company & Directors' Information:- D C MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25199KL1996PTC009988

Company & Directors' Information:- J V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC057081

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27101HR1995PTC032569

Company & Directors' Information:- D V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049221

Company & Directors' Information:- R A MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2006PTC013248

Company & Directors' Information:- C D INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH1996PLC101277

Company & Directors' Information:- G V INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2014PTC096387

Company & Directors' Information:- G S M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U02001DL2002PTC117443

Company & Directors' Information:- B G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U26921ML1980PLC001830

Company & Directors' Information:- P K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900DL2012PTC241654

Company & Directors' Information:- M D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U91110GJ1994PTC022025

Company & Directors' Information:- L C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15122UP2013PTC055697

Company & Directors' Information:- G. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15435MH2005PTC151817

Company & Directors' Information:- P A S INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active in Progress] CIN = U17121TZ2005PTC012171

Company & Directors' Information:- P. D. R. D. RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403WB2009PTC132822

Company & Directors' Information:- V AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC039251

Company & Directors' Information:- M K J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19111UP1989PTC010468

Company & Directors' Information:- G M T RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB2000PTC023708

Company & Directors' Information:- P B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29120MP1994PTC008840

Company & Directors' Information:- R & M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24297TN1972PTC006185

Company & Directors' Information:- A M INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1977PLC030854

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17117DL1995PTC064137

Company & Directors' Information:- M C INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = U27106WB1993PLC058995

Company & Directors' Information:- D R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100WB2011PTC160058

Company & Directors' Information:- J M MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2006PTC013113

Company & Directors' Information:- U K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24241WB1988PTC044355

Company & Directors' Information:- M G I INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310GJ2006PTC048707

Company & Directors' Information:- A D INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101WB2008PTC131561

Company & Directors' Information:- V J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253KA2009PTC050226

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PLC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29150WB1985PTC039217

Company & Directors' Information:- G R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300PB1996PTC018671

Company & Directors' Information:- M. K. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15549WB2008PTC130116

Company & Directors' Information:- R S V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52399MH2008PTC180489

Company & Directors' Information:- K. A. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14220JH2008PTC013409

Company & Directors' Information:- H R RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312WB2008PTC128015

Company & Directors' Information:- D K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202CH1994PLC014627

Company & Directors' Information:- D G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U36942WB1946PTC013526

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- I S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29100GJ2009PTC057308

Company & Directors' Information:- B M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17000MH1997PTC109621

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ1995PTC006398

Company & Directors' Information:- B N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67120AS1994PTC004273

Company & Directors' Information:- A J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2004PTC145040

Company & Directors' Information:- S. A. A INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01549TZ1997PTC007927

Company & Directors' Information:- C R I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U29120TZ2002PTC010129

Company & Directors' Information:- A C T INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1984PTC018724

Company & Directors' Information:- M T A MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17115TZ1989PTC003048

Company & Directors' Information:- G B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29220PN2011PTC139883

Company & Directors' Information:- S D B INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107MP1996PLC010394

Company & Directors' Information:- M M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300CT2008PTC020916

Company & Directors' Information:- A C INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB2006PTC109474

Company & Directors' Information:- K M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043295

Company & Directors' Information:- C J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25209MH1998PTC116707

Company & Directors' Information:- N P INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15549PB1989PLC009426

Company & Directors' Information:- J. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29141MP2008PTC020731

Company & Directors' Information:- I K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100MH2010PTC199474

Company & Directors' Information:- H. D. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27310MH2011PTC216080

Company & Directors' Information:- R. D. G. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26960DL2008PTC182480

Company & Directors' Information:- R B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28999DL2008PTC177248

Company & Directors' Information:- H & H INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34100DL2010PTC204604

Company & Directors' Information:- M J INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15203KA2011PTC060675

Company & Directors' Information:- B R V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32301UP1995PTC018704

Company & Directors' Information:- A. G. INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25201UP1994PLC017291

Company & Directors' Information:- B R INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15204AS1993PLC003930

Company & Directors' Information:- I P M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL1995PLC068554

Company & Directors' Information:- P A MILLS INDIA LTD. [Not available for efiling] CIN = U17111TN1990PLC019762

Company & Directors' Information:- M R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900UP2008PTC036443

Company & Directors' Information:- R D I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL1995PTC065508

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INDUSTRIES LTD [Active] CIN = L15141WB1983PLC035931

Company & Directors' Information:- A G RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311PB1996PTC018430

Company & Directors' Information:- V G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15139JK2015PTC004570

Company & Directors' Information:- V M MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111TZ2005PTC011763

Company & Directors' Information:- S N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29211UP1951PTC002319

Company & Directors' Information:- L R RICE MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312AS1989PTC003244

Company & Directors' Information:- G RICE INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15312HP1998PLC022089

Company & Directors' Information:- K G INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29130WB1951PTC019868

Company & Directors' Information:- N S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74120UP2012PTC053986

Company & Directors' Information:- K M J RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15312KL1999PTC013400

Company & Directors' Information:- P C RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01111DL1998PTC092389

Company & Directors' Information:- M P RICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB1998PTC021722

Company & Directors' Information:- D U INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29230GJ2016PTC091588

Company & Directors' Information:- S R P INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U00061BR1984PLC002023

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24231GJ1988PTC010885

Company & Directors' Information:- G B RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312UP1987PTC008772

Company & Directors' Information:- A P RICE MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312PB1993PTC013139

Company & Directors' Information:- G M MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900MH1999PTC122189

Company & Directors' Information:- M R RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312PB1986PTC006773

Company & Directors' Information:- C P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29303MP1949PTC000846

Company & Directors' Information:- J B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC245506

Company & Directors' Information:- S J V INDUSTRIES LTD [Amalgamated] CIN = U15421WB1982PLC035521

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1980PTC010427

Company & Directors' Information:- K K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65100DL1982PTC013046

Company & Directors' Information:- A T C INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27109AS1984PLC002201

Company & Directors' Information:- N V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1953PTC020952

Company & Directors' Information:- R K RICE MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312PB1988PTC008140

Company & Directors' Information:- S D RICE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15312PB1999PTC022547

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31908AS1987PTC002804

Company & Directors' Information:- R B MILLS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15141AS1949PTC001939

Company & Directors' Information:- L K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291MH2012PTC233546

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U92114DL1956PTC002616

Company & Directors' Information:- G G INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27320UP1969PTC003282

Company & Directors' Information:- K S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909MH1960PTC011707

Company & Directors' Information:- P R INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21014DL1971PTC005738

Company & Directors' Information:- R K I INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190DL2012PTC233413

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U25202AS1988PTC003132

Company & Directors' Information:- B T MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101MH1997PTC109479

Company & Directors' Information:- T R MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17111KA1954PTC000799

Company & Directors' Information:- K R INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25190KA2012PTC062367

Company & Directors' Information:- THE RICE COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109522

Company & Directors' Information:- Y K INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U19115UP2012PTC051151

Company & Directors' Information:- E S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN2012PTC086119

Company & Directors' Information:- I B INDUSTRIES LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U28992WB1990PLC050469

Company & Directors' Information:- J K MILLS LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U17200WB1946PLC013603

Company & Directors' Information:- V I INDUSTRIES LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36934WB1951PLC019890

Company & Directors' Information:- J M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05002UP1952PTC002456

Company & Directors' Information:- G M MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U18101MH2003PTC138487

Company & Directors' Information:- L F INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17291UP2015PTC068602

Company & Directors' Information:- A K S INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27201WB1946PTC013433

Company & Directors' Information:- V M V INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U26990GJ2013PTC076945

Company & Directors' Information:- S K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U29248PN1948PLC001948

Company & Directors' Information:- S P INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20232AS1980PTC001853

Company & Directors' Information:- B R RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01404DL1990PTC038906

Company & Directors' Information:- RICE INDIA (P) LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1998PTC092455

Company & Directors' Information:- V N R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21090AP2012PTC081525

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1944PTC011764

Company & Directors' Information:- LAKSHMI INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15142TN1948PTC001364

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- G I P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52605MH2015PTC263962

Company & Directors' Information:- C. L. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27109RJ2014PTC045306

Company & Directors' Information:- R. A. M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17120MH2014PTC254820

Company & Directors' Information:- S. B. INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900PN2012PTC144181

Company & Directors' Information:- A & P INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36935TG2014PTC095781

Company & Directors' Information:- C & N INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40200TG2014PTC095187

Company & Directors' Information:- B S B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TG2013PTC088059

Company & Directors' Information:- R A R INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900TG2016PTC103684

Company & Directors' Information:- K S A B INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909WB2012PTC181903

Company & Directors' Information:- S V S INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36100JK2013PTC003808

Company & Directors' Information:- R D M INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100DL2013PTC252294

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52100KA2012PTC066761

Company & Directors' Information:- S V INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U27104WB1960PTC024715

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

Company & Directors' Information:- T & M INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1956PLC002904

Company & Directors' Information:- RAO & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN1948PTC002316

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51109BR1946PTC000228

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1946PTC005438

    M.F.A. No. 202491 of 2019 (CPC)

    Decided On, 21 April 2020

    At, High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR

    For the Appellant: Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1-R3, Shivanand Patil, Advocate.



Judgment Text


(Prayer: This Appeal is filed under Section 43 Rule 1(n) of CPC praying to set aside the order passed by the Court of Prl.Dist. and sessions Judge, Raichur on I.A. No. 1/2019 dated 16.11.2019 in O.S. No.1/2019 vide Annexure-E in the interest of justice and equity.)

1. This appeal by the 3rd Defendant in O.S.No.1/2009 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (for short ‘the trial Court’) is directed against impugned order dated 16.11.2019 passed in the said suit allowing the application I.A. No. IV filed by Respondent No.1-plaintiff under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, thereby passing an order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff against all defendants including the appellant-defendant No.3.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective ranks in the trial Court.

3. the brief facts giving rise to the above appeal are as follows:-

The 1st respondent- Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Industries, Gadwal Road, Raichur, represented by its partners filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) Permanent injunction restraining defendants, their servants, agents and representatives from infringing the Trade mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ with the device of Mother Theresa Logo of the plaintiff and their erroneously vending rice or offering for vending or otherwise dealing alike to the rice of the plaintiff as per similar trade mark of Mathaji Brand with the device of Mother Theresa Emblem deceptively alike to the plaintiff’s trade mark;

(b) Directing defendants to pay damages/compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the suit until realization by holding the defendants jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff;

(c) To deliver of labels, marks, empty bags, blocks, dies etc., containing deceptively similar trade mark of plaintiff for destruction thereof;

(d) Costs of the suit;

(e) Such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be granted in the ends of justice.”

Before the trial Court, the appellant was arrayed ad Defendant No.3 in the suit.

4. In the suit, the plaintiff specifically contended that it was a registered partnership firm which was the owner of a valid registered and distinctive trade mark and word mark No.1465146 dated 26.06.2006 issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai bearing unique emblem ‘Mathaji Brand’ (device of Mother Theresa). It was contended that the said trade mark and emblem was found on the packages of fine quality of rice being processed and sold by the plaintiff for many years as a result of which, the plaintiff-firm had gained immense reputation and goodwill in the said market for its well known quality of fine rice with the registered brand Mathaji with the logo and emblem of ‘Mother Theresa’ for many years.

5. The plaintiff contended that the firm sells the said packages of rice containing the trade mark ‘Mathaji brand along with an emblem of ‘Mother Theresa’ in other States also and as such, the plaintiff-firm having got wide recognition and high demand in the market, the plaintiff has an exclusive right to use the said registered trade mark.

6. The plaintiff averred that prior to filing of the suit, it learnt that one ‘Bhagyodaya Rice Industries’ of Bellary district was engaged in processing and sale of packages of rice in bulk quantities to defendant No.1-firm, of which defendant No.2 was the proprietor. It was contended that the said packages of bags of rice had deceptively similar and identical brand name of ‘Sri Mathaji’ with device of ‘Mother Theresa’ logo owned by the plaintiff-firm. In support of the said averment, the plaintiff referred to a bill bearing No.0159 dated 02.06.2019 valued at Rs.8,77,500/- bearing the GST number of Defendants 1 and 2. It was therefore contended that the defendants 1 and 2 sold the said infringed branded spurious rice in Gujarat by misrepresenting that the said goods were produced and processed by the plaintiff-firm.

7. On 23.01.2019, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the said ‘Bhagyodaya Rice Industries’ calling upon them to cease and desist from processing and trading by infringement and passing off the trade mark of the plaintiff. It was further contended that along with letter dated 05.06.2019, the said Bhagyodaya Industries informed the plaintiff that it will stop the process and sale of the infringed branded rice of the plaintiff and also enclosed 10,000 empty bags bearing deceptively similar trade mark brand of the plaintiff.

8. On 22.05.2019, similar cease and desist notice were issued by the plaintiff to defendant 1 and 2 who issued replies putting forth false and frivolous contentions. It was contended by the plaintiff that despite being aware that there was infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s trade mark and its sale of goods, the defendants 1 and 2 were actively indulging in processing and securing fake quality of rice under deceptively designed packages bearing deceptively identical ‘Mathaji Brand’ with ‘Mother Theresa’ by adding ‘Sri’ before ‘Mathaji’ and ‘Gold’ after ‘Mathaji’. It was therefore contended that the defendants 1 and 2 are guilty of infringement and passing off and misrepresenting to the market that the goods sold by them is that of the plaintiff’s trade mark brand.

9. At Paragraphs 9 to 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has furnished details with regard to the instance and proof of infringement and passing off by defendants 1 and 2. At paragraph -12 of the plaint, it is contended that the defendants 1 and 2 prompted defendant No.3 to process and produce similar packages of rice bearing deceptively similar brand of ‘Mathaji’ with ‘Mother Theresa’ logo by adding the word ‘Sri’ to ‘Mathaji’ brand and ‘Gold’ after ‘Mathaji’. It was therefore contended that the said infringement and passing off by defendant No.3 at the instigation of defendants 1 and 2 has resulted in supplying fake quality of rice under the infringed brand name of the plaintiff-firm by misleading the public. Similarly, the said contentions put forth by the plaintiff have been reiterated in paragraphs 13 to 15 in order to contend that there was huge loss being caused to the plaintiff on account of the illegal and high-handed acts of the defendants. So also, at Paragraphs 16 and 17, the plaintiff has referred to a criminal case filed against defendant No.3 and at Paragraphs 18 to 26 of the plaint, the plaintiff has put forth pleadings with regard to the cause of action for the suit and the hardship and loss being caused to the plaintiff.

10. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.1 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act for temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from infringing the schedule mentioned trade mark of the plaintiff by erroneously vending/selling the rice or offering for vending or otherwise dealing deceptively alike to the schedule mentioned trade mark brand rice packages of the firm pending disposal of the suit. In the first instance, on 13.08.2019, the trial Court passed an ex-parte order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants having been served with suit summons and notice, they entered appearance and contested the matter. The defendants did not file their written statement. However, only the defendant No.3, i.e., the appellant herein filed its objections to the application I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff as stated supra.

11. In their statement of objections, the defendant No.3 denied having any knowledge about the trade mark registered in the name of the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant No.3 has not utilized either the brand or the trade mark claimed by the plaintiff, much less utilized the same for vending or selling the rice or offering the same for vending deceptively. It was also contended that the brand name ‘Mathaji’ is a generic name and the prefix ‘Sri’ and ‘Gold’ used by defendant No.3 makes their product dissimilar and as such, there was no passing off which can be attributed to the 3rd defendant and consequently, the said application was liable to be rejected.

12. It was specifically contended that the defendant No.3 has been in the business of milling and selling rice since 1992 onwards not only in Karnataka but also in other neighbouring states. It was alleged that in rice business as well as in other business, the name ‘Mathaji’ is always used and the same with trademark number varies from person to person, business to business and State to State. It was contended that the rice bags sold by defendant No.3 is in the name ‘Sri Mathaji Gold’ with the device of ‘Mother Theresa’ along with disclaimer note on each of the bags followed by FASSI number which was in accordance with law and would not infringe the right of the plaintiff or violate the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. It was therefore contended that the plaintiff is attempting to distort, disturb and frustrate the business of the defendant No.3.

13. The defendant No.3 contended that the device Mother Theresa’s emblem used on rice bags is a matter of discretion which cannot be brought within the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, particularly when she is considered an international and inspirational figure for many social services and business including rice, education etc., and using of her emblem on a gunny bag would not amount to infringement. It was specifically contended that the business of defendant No.3 and the mill in its name at Gangavathi, Koppal District was registered long back in 1992-93, whereas the plaintiff whose industry was also registered in the same name but located in Raichur District.

14. After hearing the parties, the trial Court passed the impugned order allowing I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff thereby confirming the ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 13.08.2019 and made the same absolute till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the impugned order allowing I.A.No.1, the appellant-defendant No.3 is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court committed an error of law and jurisdiction in allowing the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff. In the context, learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the registered trade mark issued in favour of the plaintiff and the trade mark that was being used by the plaintiff clearly indicates that both of them are different from one another. It was contended that the plaintiff had filed the suit specifically contending that the appellant was guilty of infringement of the registered trade mark and that so long as the trade mark being used by the appellant was different from the registered trade mark in favour of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the defendant was guilty of infringement of the registered trade mark.

16. It was also contended that the plaintiff had put forth a specific contention that the trade mark that was being used by him at the time of filing the suit was the same as the registered trade mark and since a perusal of both the trade marks in favour of the plaintiff indicate that they were different, there was clear variance between pleading and proof on the part of the plaintiff who was consequently not entitled to an order of temporary injunction as sought for by him.

17. It is also contended that a perusal of the registered trade mark in favour of the plaintiff and the symbol/logo used by the appellant will indicate that both were completely different and that in the absence of any similarity, much less deceptive similarity between both the symbols/logos, the plaintiff had not made out a prima-facie case of infringement or passing off as contended by him. It was also contended that the word ‘Mathaji’ was generic in nature as also the emblem/logo of ‘Mother Theresa’ who was a world famous personality and as such, the plaintiff could not claim any absolute right over usage of the words ‘Mathaji’ or ‘Mother Theresa’ and consequently, the question of granting temporary injunction in his favour did not arise.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant was doing business in milling and selling rice from the year 1992 under the name ‘Sri Mathaji Gold’ with the symbol/logo engrossed on the rice bags. The symbol/logo of the appellant was completely different from both the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as well as the trade mark supposedly being used by the plaintiff at the time of the suit. There were many dissimilarities between both the symbols/logos, in particular while the plaintiff’s bag has the words ‘Mathaji Brand’, the defendant uses the words ‘Sri Mathaji Gold’ which is completely different especially when the picture of ‘Mother Theresa’ as well as the word ‘Mathaji’ were generic and the plaintiff could not claim exclusive or absolute right over the same. Putting forth these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant and that the impugned order of temporary injunction operating against him has resulted in irreparable injury and hardship against the appellant. Under these circumstances, learned counsel submits that the impugned order pass by the trial Court deserves to be set aside and consequently, the application I.A. No.1 filed by the plaintiff for temporary injunction is liable to be rejected.

19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 plaintiff would support the impugned order. Leaned counsel would also placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contentions:-

(i) AIR 1965 SC 980

(ii) (2001) 5 SCC 73

(iii) (2004) 3 SCC 90

(iv) (2004) 6 KAR.LJ 513 (SC)

(v) (2006) 7 SCC 726

(vi) (2007) 6 SCC 1

(vii) AIR 2018 SC 5106

(viii) ILR 2004 KAR 4325

(ix) AIR 2008 Gujarat 65

20. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the entire material on record including the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

21. The following points arise for consideration in the present appeal:-

“(i) Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction?

(ii) Whether the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff would be put to irreparable injury and hardship if an order of temporary injunction is not passed in his favour?

(iv) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal?”

Point No.1:- Prima-facie case

22. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of the registered trade mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ with the device/symbol/emblem/logo of ‘Mother Theresa’ which was registered in favour of the plaintiff on 26.06.2006. In this context, the registration certificate indicates that the same was being used by the plaintiff since 18.10.2002. It can also be seen that the said registration of the trade mark in favour of the plaintiff was renewed on 26.06.2016 and was in force up to 26.06.2026. A perusal of the registration certificate will indicate that what was registered in favour of the plaintiff was clearly the word mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ in conjunction with the device/symbol/emblem/logo of ‘Mother Theresa’. This specific trade mark comprising of the word mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ and the device/emblem/symbol/logo of ‘Mother Theresa’ in conjunction with each other was the exclusive and absolute trade mark of the plaintiff and apart from the plaintiff, no one else were entitled to use the same. In other words, the trade mark registered in favour of the plaintiff comprising of a combination of the word mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ and device of ‘Mother Theresa’ for the purpose of selling rice was prima-facie an exclusive property of the plaintiff and no body else including the defendants were entitled to use the said word and device in the same combination since it was undisputedly registered in favour of the plaintiff. So also, prima-facie it can be seen that the aforesaid combination of word mark and device was not generic in nature as sought to be contended by the appellant and on the other hand, the same was specific in nature and capable of being used in the said combination only by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the rice bags of defendant No.3 containing the mark “Sri Mathaji Gold” with the emblem/device/symbol/logo of ‘Mother Theresa’ was specious in nature and deceptively similar and identical to the plaintiff’s trade mark and consequently, it was clear that prima/facie, the defendant was guilty of using the same by infringing the plaintiff’s trade mark and also passing of the same type of goods which were being sold by the plaintiff.

23. It can also be seen that while the plaintiff had produced sufficient material to establish that he was a prior user of the aforesaid trade mark from the year 2002 onwards, the defendant No.3 having put forth a specific contention that he was using it from 1992 had not produced any material whosoever to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any prima-facie material produced by the appellant to establish that he was either carrying on business in rice from 1992 onwards or that he was using the said trade mark prior to the plaintiff, the said contention urged on behalf of the defendant deserves to be rejected.

24. The material on record also indicates that the plaintiff had been allotted the registered trade mark into as long back as in 2006 and in the face of the documents produced by the plaintiff which indicate that he was using the said trade mark from 2006 onwards coupled with the fact that the appellant had not produced any material whatsoever to establish that he was selling the goods prior to the plaintiff, the appellant was guilty of both passing of and infringement.

25. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, for the purpose of finding out whether there was passing of or infringement what was relevant was the similarities between the marks of the plaintiff and defendant No.3. In this context, so long as there are visual and phonetic similarities between both the marks, the defendant No.3 was prima-facie guilty of infringement as well as passing of and consequently, the trial court came to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case for grant of an order of temporary injunction.

26. A perusal of the registration certificate issued in the year 2006 in favour of the plaintiff will clearly indicate that what was registered in favour of the plaintiff was not only the usage of the word mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ but also the device of ‘Mother Theresa’. Prima-facie, the said condition and limitation stipulated in the said registration certificate is limited to not giving any right to the plaintiff only for usage of the device “State, Brand and all other descriptive matter” and the said prohibition/limitation does not apply to the trade mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ and ‘Mother Theresa’. Under these circumstances, it can be prima-facie seen that so long as this condition and limitation stipulated in the Registration Certificate does not include the word mark ‘Mathaji Brand’ and the device of ‘Mother Theresa’, the plaintiff has prima-facie an exclusive right over the same and the act of defendant No.3 in using the same for marketing the same produce i.e., rice, prima-facie tantamount to infringement and passing of by the defendant No.3 as rightly held by the trial court.

27. The material on record indicates that it is not in dispute that the names of plaintiff and defendant No.3 are almost identical in that while plaintiff is “Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Rice Mill’, the defendant describes itself as ‘Sri Lakshmi Srinivasa Industries’. It is also not in dispute that the goods in question being sold by both of them is rice. It can also be seen that the words ‘Mathaji’ and the emblem/symbol/logo/device of ‘Mother Theresa’ is found in the rice bags of both the plaintiff and defendant No.3. It is therefore clear prima-facie that while the plaintiff has not only produced the Registration Certificate and material to show that he is the prior user, the defendant No.3 has not placed any material to substantiate his contention that he is carrying on business from 1992 onwards and that he is using the said mark from any point in time prior to the plaintiff. On the other hand, in paragraph-5 of its objections, the defendant No.3 has unequivocally admitted that he has been using the name of ‘Sri Mathaji Gold’ with the device of ‘Mother Theresa’. However, the defendant No.3 has not placed any material to establish that he was using the same prior to the plaintiff. In face, there is nothing on record produced by the defendant No.3 with regard to the actual year and date from which he is selling rice with the aforesaid mark. Under these circumstances, it is clear that in the absence of any material to establish that the defendant No.3 has been using the said mark prior to the plaintiff, prima-facie, I am of the opinion that the trial court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that prima-facie the defendant No.3 was guilty of both passing of as well as infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark and goods.

28. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the defendant No.3 that there is variance between the registered trade mark in favour of the plaintiff and the trade mark being used at present is concerned, having regard to the other material on record coupled with the fact that the defendant No.3 had not produced any material to establish that he was the prior user of the trade mark, mere variance of the registered trade mark and the trade mark presently used by the plaintiff was not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not made out a prima-facie case.

29. Insofar as the contention urged on behalf of the defendant No.3 that the plaintiff having put forth a specific contention with regard to infringement is not entitled to subsequently plead passing of without necessary amendment to the pleadings is concerned, a perusal of the pleadings of plaintiff prima-facie indicates that the plaintiff has alleged both infringement of the registered trade mark as well as passing of the goods by the defendant. In any event, as stated supra, in the absence of any material to establish that the defendant No.3 was using the said trade mark, which is prima-facie deceptively similar and identical to the plaintiff’s trade mark, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the plaintiff has clearly made out a prima-facie case in his favour.

30. The material on record clearly indicates that prima-facie if the Registration Certificate of the plaintiff, the rice bags of the plaintiff and the rice bags of the defendant No.3 are looked at from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, it is prima-facie clear that having regard to the colour scheme, the size of the bag, the contents of the bag, both the bags being of identical size, all the essential characteristics of the plaintiff’s trade name are also contain in the bags used by defendant No.3. Having regard to the over all similarities both etymologically and phonologically, it is clear that the broad and essential features of bags of both the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and the important features and characteristics viz., designed, lay out, get up, colour scheme of the wrapper used by the defendant No.3 etc., coupled with the fact that the name of the plaintiff is identical to the name of the defendant No.3 and the produce (rice) being sold by both of them being one and the same, there is every possibility prima-facie of confusion from the point of view of an unwary purchaser with imperfect recollection who would be likely to mistake the bag of the defendant No.3 as the bag of the plaintiff and the customer would get confused and deceived in purchasing the bags of the defendant under the impression that the same are being marketed and sold by the plaintiff.

31. Under these circumstances, keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court and other Courts in relation to infringement of trade marks and passing of, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour. Accordingly, the said finding recorded by the trial court does not warrant interference by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, Point No.1 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff.

Point No.2 Balance of convenience:

32. While dealing with the aspect of prima-facie case, I have already come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has made out a prima-facie case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour pending disposal of the suit. In addition to other circumstances. I have taken into account the undisputed fact that despite having specifically contended that it was carrying on business is selling rice from 1992 onwards and was using the said trade mark much prior to the plaintiff, the defendant No.3 has not placed any material to substantiate its contention. On the other hand, the material on record clearly establishes prima-facie that not only does the plaintiff have registered trade mark in his favour but he also is prima/facie the prior user of the said mark. In the absence of any material produced by the defendant No.3 to establish that he was a prior user of the said trade mark, I am of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in granting temporary injunction is clearly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.3 who has failed to substantiate the contentions put forth by him in his statement of objectio

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ns. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was fully justified in coming conclusion that the balance of convenience for grant of temporary injunction lies in favour of the plaintiff and not in favour of the defendant No.3. Accordingly, even this finding recorded by the trial court does not warrant interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Point No.2 is also answered against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff. Point No.3 –Hardship: 33. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court will indicate that the learned trial Judge has correctly and properly appreciated the entire material on record and having come to the conclusion that the plaintiff had made out a prima-facie case and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff, if the defendant No.3 was not restrained by an order of temporary injunction, plaintiff would be put to an irreparable injury and hardship and justice would suffer. Upon re-appreciation of the entire material on record coupled with the several circumstances considered by me while dealing with the aspects of prima-facie case and balance of convenience. I am of the considered opinion that in the facts of the instant case, if the defendant No.3 is not restrained by an order of temporary injunction, great injury and hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the trail court was fully justified in coming to the correct conclusion that the plaintiff would be put to great injury and hardship if an order of temporary injunction is not passed in his favour against defendant No.3. Accordingly, even this finding recorded by the trial court does not warrant interference by this Court. In view of the aforesaid discussion. Point No.3 is answered against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff. Point No.4: 34. Having regard to the discussion as well as the facts and circumstances narrated above. I am of the considered opinion that in the facts of the instant case, the trial court was fully justified in allowing I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the wrll reasoned, correct and proper order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court in the present appeal. 35. However, it is made clear that the reasoning an findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned order as well as by this Court in the present order are only prima-facie in nature and the same will not influence the trial court at the time of disposal of the suit on merits. In view of the aforesaid discussion, Point No.4 is also answered against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff. 36. In view of my findings recorded on the aforesaid points, I do not find any merit in the above appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

01-10-2020 Sushma Rani & Another Versus H.N. Nagaraja Rao & Another High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Sushma Rani & Another Versus H.N. Nagaraja Rao & Another High Court of Karnataka
30-09-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-09-2020 Dr. H.T. Arvind Rao & Another Versus Dr. Kumuda & Another High Court of Karnataka
10-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajasthan Versus M/s. Radhika Oil Industries, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 MS Industries & Spirits (P) Ltd. Versus M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt Ltd. High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. AAF India Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Jagruti Mursenia Versus M/s. KBR Industries, Represented by its Partner High Court of Karnataka
28-08-2020 Karnataka Professional Colleges Foundation Rep. by its Secretary R.V. Govinda Rao & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-08-2020 K. Ranga Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
25-08-2020 The Deputy General Manager, Small Industries Development Bank of India, Coimbatore & Another Versus M/s. Annamalai Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director, P. Velusamy, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 M/s. Govindhji Jewat & Co., Represented by its Partner Rajendra Kone & Others Versus M/s. Rukmani Mills Ltd., Represented by its Board of Directors, Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-08-2020 K. Manikkan, Railway Liason Officer, Malabar Cements Limited, Walayar Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by The Principal Secretary, Industries (H) Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-08-2020 Deccan Paper Mills Company Limited Versus Regency Mahavir Properties & Others Supreme Court of India
19-08-2020 L. Ahmed Abdul Razack Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-08-2020 M/S Anjaneya Bisanpur Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Dilawar Singh Rawat & Another High Court of Delhi
13-08-2020 A.V.V.B. Eeswara Rao Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-08-2020 Krishnamoorthy & Another Versus Chengalvarayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Periyasevalai, Rep. by its Special Officer & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-08-2020 P.V. Rao, Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Versus Anil Baburao Pansare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Shailendra Singh Versus M/s. Vittal Cashew Industries, Represented by its Partner H. Ganesh Kamath & Others High Court of Karnataka
04-08-2020 R.V. Granites, rep. by its Managing Partner S. Padmavathi Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Mines.II) Department Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-07-2020 Dr. Ambadan Rao & Others Versus State of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 P.L. Vishweshwar Rao Versus Union of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-07-2020 Dr. M. Sudheendra Rao Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Rep. by its Authorised representative Goregaon Mumbai Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-07-2020 Routhu Lakshman Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh High Court of Andhra Pradesh
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Integrated Enterprises India Ltd. & Another Versus Ippili Krishna Surekha Rao & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Ganta Srinivasa Rao Versus The State of Telangana High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
08-06-2020 G.J. Rao. R.R. Dist. Versus Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar High Court of for the State of Telangana
08-06-2020 P.P. Jose, Manager, Mattoor, Kalady, Rice Tech Agro Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus M.M. Abdulkhader, Proprietor, East India Trading Company, Kothamangalam & Another High Court of Kerala
04-06-2020 Gattu Vaman Rao Versus State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-06-2020 Birin Spinning Mills Limited, Rep its Director D. Rangaswamy & Others Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Bandaru Manikyala Rao @ Manikya Rao & Others Versus Kedari Srinivasa Rao & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-05-2020 Thangarajar Mills Pvt.Limited, Unit III, Rep., by its Manager (Administration) & Another Versus The Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Corporation Ltd., (TANGEDCO), Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
22-05-2020 Suryadevara Venkata Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
22-05-2020 A.B. Venkateswara Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary to the Govrnment, Amaravathi & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Allu Srinivasa Rao Versus State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
07-05-2020 Chindu Sambasiva Rao Versus Chindu Padma High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-05-2020 G.A. Rama Rao & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, LET & F Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
05-05-2020 Mohamed Tanveer Versus The State of Karnataka by Addl. Chief Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-05-2020 Agricola Enterprises Ltd. & Another Versus Ministry for Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-04-2020 Majeti Venkateswara Rao Versus Eadara Nageswara Rao High Court of Andhra Pradesh
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
28-04-2020 Marrapu Sankara Rao Versus Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 P. Chandrasekhar Rao & Another Versus The State of Telangana Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Others Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
22-04-2020 Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao & Others Versus State of A.P. & Others Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Chinna Rao Swayamvarappu Versus State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Kochi & Another High Court of Kerala
09-04-2020 P.C. Rao & Another Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Under Secretary Energy Department & Others High Court of Karnataka
03-04-2020 James Andrew Mills Versus The Queen Court of Appeal of New Zealand
26-03-2020 Anilkumar Vaikuthlal Patel Versus O.L. of A'bad Jubili Spinning & Mfg. Mills Co. & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 VVR Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Rep By Its Chairman, V. Sambasiva Rao Versus Chennupathi Hanumantha Rao National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
13-03-2020 Pulivarthi Venkata Seshagiri Rao Versus Babburi Venkata Swamy & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
13-03-2020 Alla Sanyasi Rao & Another Versus Bank of India, Mumbai rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
10-03-2020 Muppa Venkateswara Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Vangapalli Muninder Rao & Another V/S Bhukya Rajanna & Another In The High Court Of State Of Telangana
03-03-2020 Gorla Sivamma Versus Marri Srinivasa Rao Sivaiah & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Prasana Dileep Rao Desh Pandey Versus State of Uttarakhand High Court of Uttarakhand
27-02-2020 M/s. Akshaya Agro Informatics Pvt Ltd., Chennai V/S M/s. K.K. Rice Mill, Represented by its Proprietor, K. Karthikeyan High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-02-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Videocon Industries Ltd. (Through) High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai Versus K.V. Subba Rao & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras