|
|
 |
(2006) 4 MLJ 1072 (Mad)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Present : D. Murugesan and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Case Number(s) : T.M.S.A. No. 3 of 2000.
Judgement Date :
Monday 25th of September 2006
| Aravind Laboratories, Chennai | .....Appellant(s) | | Versus | | | M.A. Rahim, Karaikudi | .....Respondent(s) |
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), Section 56 Application for rectification of the Register Rejection of Statutory appeal also dismissed Second appeal to High Court Registrar came to the conclusion that the marks were not identical or deceptively similar to each other Order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on an application for rectification is a quasi judicial order Scope of interference is very limited Registrar is vested with an element of discretion in him When the exercise of that discre-tion is not shown to be arbitrary or capricious, it is not open to the Court to interfere with his orders very lightly Appeal dismissed.
Scope of interference with the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, in an application for ratification, is very limited and unless it is shown that such order was passed in an arbitrary or capricious man-ner, the Court will not interfere with the same."
Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), Section 56 Application for rectification of the Register Rejection of Statutory appeal also dismissed Second appeal to High Court Registrar came to the conclusion that the marks were not identical or deceptively similar to each other Order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on an application for rectification is a quasi judicial order Scope of interference is very limited Registrar is vested with an element of discretion in him When the exercise of that discre-tion is not shown to be arbitrary or capricious, it is not open to the Court to interfere with his orders very lightly Appeal dismissed.
Scope of interference with the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, in an application for ratification, is very limited and unless it is shown that such order was passed in an arbitrary or capricious man-ner, the Court will not interfere with the same."
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), Section 23 Market value of lands acquired by Government Determi-nation of When large area is the subject matter of acquisition, the rate at which small plots are sold, can-not be a safe criteria But there is no absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate of larger extents When there is no other material, it is open to the adjudi-cating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land Relevant factors to be consid-ered for determination of compensation are: (a) the State of development of acquired land and nearby areas at the time of acquisition and (b) proximity and orientation with respect to any major highways Location of the lands acquired, play a major role in determining the value On facts that the lands acquired would carry potentiality for the increase of value Appeal partly allowed.
Ratio(s) Decidendi
In proceedings arising under the Land Acquisition Act, the adjudicating Court, in appropriate cases, can determine value of larger extent of lands acquired, on the basis of sale deeds in respect of small plots, due to non-availability of any other material.
Cases Referred
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta AIR 1963 SC 449
Arvind Laboratories v. V. Annamalai Chettiyar : [1981] 1 M.L.J. 75
Arvind Laboratories v. V. A. Samy Chemical Works AIR 1987 Mad. 265
Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2001 1 CTMR 288 (SC)
J. R. Kapoor v. Micronix India 1994 Supp [3] SCC 215
Jamna Products, Manufacturer of Kanmaie v. Arvind Lab. 2003 [27] PTC 409
Indo Pharma Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Ltd 1998 [2] LW 646
Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. J. P. & Co. AIR 1972 SC 1359
Rajkrishnan v. Parthas Textiles 1997 PTC 205
Oops. Login required for Full Text of Judgment.
You are not Logged in. Kindly Login.
If you are a new user then Register.
|
|
 |
|
 |
