Ramesh Khatanmal Lulla vs Mohammad Yusuf Abdul Gaffar
2017 Latest Caselaw 2810 Bom

                                               1




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                                    NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



Appeal against Order No. 7 of 2017

Appellant                :          Ramesh Khatanmal Lulla, aged about 

                                    44 years, Occupation : Business, Proprietor,

                                    M/s K.T. Food Products, M-11, MIDC, 

                                    Phase No. 4, Kumbhari Road, Akola

                                    versus

Respondent               :          Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Gaffar, aged 

about 34 years, Occ: Business, Proprietor

of New Dinar Trading Company, resident of

Ganga Nagar, Akola

Shri Nitin Lalwani, Advocate for appellant

Shri S. S. Sarda, Advocate for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 6th June 2017

Oral Judgment

1. Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. Having considered the main ground of challenge, which is of not

giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant and also the relevant

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that limited relief can be

granted to the appellant.

3. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for

considering the application (Exhibit 5) afresh in accordance with law. The

application shall be disposed of within one month from the date of appearance

of the parties. Both the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court in expeditious

disposal of the application within a time frame fixed by this Court and shall not

seek any adjournment unless the same is required to be sought for the reason

beyond their control. Both the parties to appear before the trial Court on

12.6.2017. However, by way of ad-interim injunction, the appellant shall

refrain from using in any manner the duplicate trade mark till final disposal of

the application (Exhibit 5) by the trial Court. It is made clear that the ad-

interim injunction has been granted by this Court only to protect interests of

both the parties and, therefore, the trial Court shall not be influenced by the

order of this Court granting such ad-interim injunction in favour of the

respondent.

4. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi