M/s.THROTTLERZ PITSTOP, rep by its Trade Mark Owner Mr.Biju vs THROTTLERZ HOUSE Advocate - M.Saleem — 35/2025
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 151. Status: For further Proceedings. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
COS - Commercial Original Suit
CNR: TNCB220000802025
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
e-Filing Number
10-09-2025
Filing Number
104/2025
Filing Date
11-09-2025
Registration No
35/2025
Registration Date
11-09-2025
Court
Commercial Court in the Cadre of District Judge, Coimbatore
Judge
1-COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M/s.THROTTLERZ PITSTOP, rep by its Trade Mark Owner Mr.Biju
Adv. Syed Aman.S.Y.
THROTTLERZ PITSTOP, Rep by its Proprietor Mrs.Harshiny Krishna Ayyar
Adv. Syed Aman.S.Y.
Respondent(s)
THROTTLERZ HOUSE Advocate - M.Saleem
Hearing History
Judge: 1-COMMERCIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE
For further Proceedings
For further Proceedings
Orders
IA Pending
IA Pending
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 27-04-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 21-04-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 01-04-2026 | Orders |
| 30-03-2026 | IA Pending |
| 27-03-2026 | IA Pending |
Interim Orders
Summary The Commercial Court of Coimbatore dismissed the petition filed by M/s. Throttlerz House (defendant) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The court rejected the defendant's arguments on limitation, jurisdiction, and cause of action, finding that the suit was filed within the limitation period, the court had proper jurisdiction to entertain the combined trademark infringement and passing off claims, and the plaint adequately disclosed a cause of action. The petition was dismissed with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Commercial Court of Coimbatore dismissed the petition filed by M/s. Throttlerz House (defendant) seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. The court rejected the defendant's arguments on limitation, jurisdiction, and cause of action, finding that the suit was filed within the limitation period, the court had proper jurisdiction to entertain the combined trademark infringement and passing off claims, and the plaint adequately disclosed a cause of action. The petition was dismissed with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts