Saisradha Paithani through Gaurav bandusa kherud vs Shabbir Ajij shaikh Advocate - Shaikh Ismail K. — 1/2023
Case under Trade Marks Act Section 52. Status: Filing of Say on Exh___Unready. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.
Suit Trade Mark Act - Civil Suit under Trade Mark Act
CNR: MHNS270028782023
Next Hearing
08th May 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
750/2023
Filing Date
08-09-2022
Registration No
1/2023
Registration Date
08-09-2022
Court
Additional District Court Yeola
Judge
1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Yeola
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Saisradha Paithani through Gaurav bandusa kherud
Adv. Patil Rohit D.
Respondent(s)
Shabbir Ajij shaikh Advocate - Shaikh Ismail K.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Yeola
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
Filing of Say on Exh___Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 10-03-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 24-02-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 17-01-2026 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready | |
| 06-12-2025 | Filing of Say on Exh___Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Court allowed the defendant Shabbir Ajij Shaikh's application to set aside the "No Say Order" dated 05.03.2024 in a trademark dispute concerning the "Saishraddha Paithani" logo. The application was allowed on the condition that the defendant pay costs of Rs. 1,000, after which his reply on both the interim and main applications will be taken on record. The court found that denying the defendant an opportunity to present his defense would cause undue hardship despite the five-month delay in filing the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Court allowed the defendant Shabbir Ajij Shaikh's application to set aside the "No Say Order" dated 05.03.2024 in a trademark dispute concerning the "Saishraddha Paithani" logo. The application was allowed on the condition that the defendant pay costs of Rs. 1,000, after which his reply on both the interim and main applications will be taken on record. The court found that denying the defendant an opportunity to present his defense would cause undue hardship despite the five-month delay in filing the application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts