Showing posts with label DANDI SALT P.LTD.& ANR VS INDO BRINE INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.-SC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DANDI SALT P.LTD.& ANR VS INDO BRINE INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.-SC. Show all posts

Saturday, May 19, 2018

DANDI SALT P.LTD.& ANR VS INDO BRINE INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.-SC


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).33463/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2012 in AFO No.242/2012 of The
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)


Date of Order: 14.12.2012
These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

Appellant: M/S DANDI SALT P.LTD.& ANR 
Vs.
Respondent: M/S INDO BRINE INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.


(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 20246 of 2012
WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP and office report)



Hon'ble Judges: 
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAINHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,  JJ.



Counsels: 
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:
Mr. S.K. Bansal, Adv., In SLP 33463/12 Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv., Mr. Suwarn Rajan, Adv., Mr.Rakesh Kumar,Adv.-on-Record, In CC 20246/12 Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv.-on-Record, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Adv.,



For Respondents/Defendant: 
Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv., Mr. A. Venkatesh, Adv., Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv., ms. Mansha Monga, Adv.,


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

ORDER


Delay condoned.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that instead of going into the merits of the impugned orders at this stage, it would be expedient and proper if the trial Court is ..2/- : 2 : directed to dispose of the applications filed by the parties under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 as also under Rule 4 of Order 39, C.P.C. in Regular Suit Nos. 3 and 2 of 2011 expeditiously. 

We may note that by the impugned orders dated 9th October, 2012 and 6th July, 2012, the High Court has directed the trial Court to dispose of the said applications within a period of 60 days/six months from the date of receipt of copy of their orders. We are, however, informed that the said applications have not even been taken up for consideration.

Under the circumstances, we direct the trial Court to dispose of the said applications as expeditiously as possible but in any case, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Learned counsel appearing for the parties assure us that their clients shall not seek adjournment and shall render full cooperation in the disposal of the said applications.
The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

DANDI SALT P.LTD.& ANR VS INDO BRINE INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.-SC

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).33463/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 09/10/2012 in AFO No.242/2012 of The
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD)

Date of Order: 14.12.2012
These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

Appellant: M/S DANDI SALT P.LTD.& ANR
Vs.
Respondent: M/S INDO BRINE INDUSTRIES LTD.& ORS.

(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
WITH S.L.P.(C)...CC NO. 20246 of 2012
WITH I.A. 1 (C/Delay in filing SLP and office report)

Hon'ble Judges:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAINHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,  JJ.

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:
Mr. S.K. Bansal, Adv., In SLP 33463/12 Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv., Mr. Suwarn Rajan, Adv., Mr.Rakesh Kumar,Adv.-on-Record, In CC 20246/12 Mr. Arjun Garg, Adv.-on-Record, Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Adv.,


For Respondents/Defendant:
Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Annam D.N. Rao,Adv., Mr. A. Venkatesh, Adv., Ms. Neelam Jain, Adv., ms. Mansha Monga, Adv.,


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following


ORDER

Delay condoned.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that instead of going into the merits of the impugned orders at this stage, it would be expedient and proper if the trial Court is ..2/- : 2 : directed to dispose of the applications filed by the parties under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 as also under Rule 4 of Order 39, C.P.C. in Regular Suit Nos. 3 and 2 of 2011 expeditiously. We may note that by the impugned orders dated 9th October, 2012 and 6th July, 2012, the High Court has directed the trial Court to dispose of the said applications within a period of 60 days/six months from the date of receipt of copy of their orders. We are, however, informed that the said applications have not even been taken up for consideration.

Under the circumstances, we direct the trial Court to dispose of the said applications as expeditiously as possible but in any case, not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Learned counsel appearing for the parties assure us that their clients shall not seek adjournment and shall render full cooperation in the disposal of the said applications.

The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog