M/s.A.G.Pabari and Co. vs M/s. Ravi Enterprise Advocate - B H CHOTAI, J D CHHETARIYA — 1/2021
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 26,. Status: PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.
TMSUIT - TRADE MARK SUIT
CNR: GJDW010001542021
Next Hearing
22nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1/2021
Filing Date
18-03-2021
Registration No
1/2021
Registration Date
18-03-2021
Court
DISTRICT COURT, KHAMBHALIA
Judge
7-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s.A.G.Pabari and Co.
Adv. R H BHANSALI, V V KANABAR
Respondent(s)
M/s. Ravi Enterprise Advocate - B H CHOTAI, J D CHHETARIYA
Hearing History
Judge: 7-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE
COUNTER CLAIM
COUNTER CLAIM
COUNTER CLAIM
COUNTER CLAIM
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE | |
| 31-01-2026 | COUNTER CLAIM | |
| 12-12-2025 | COUNTER CLAIM | |
| 28-11-2025 | COUNTER CLAIM | |
| 07-11-2025 | COUNTER CLAIM |
Interim Orders
SUMMARY: The court rejected the defendant's application under Order-7, Rule-11(D) of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the plaintiff's trademark infringement suit filed under Section 142 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found the plaintiff had properly pleaded a cause of action for groundless and illegal threats, the disputed issues were triable matters better suited for the main trial, and the defendant was barred by the principle of estoppel from re-agitating issues already decided during interim injunction proceedings. The defendant was ordered to pay compensatory costs of Rs. 10,000 within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
SUMMARY: The court rejected the defendant's application under Order-7, Rule-11(D) of the CPC challenging the maintainability of the plaintiff's trademark infringement suit filed under Section 142 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found the plaintiff had properly pleaded a cause of action for groundless and illegal threats, the disputed issues were triable matters better suited for the main trial, and the defendant was barred by the principle of estoppel from re-agitating issues already decided during interim injunction proceedings. The defendant was ordered to pay compensatory costs of Rs. 10,000 within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts