Case: Fit Tight Nuts and Bolts Ltd., Bombay Vs Saroopsons Industries, Ludhiana. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. L. B. Desai, Advocate
JudgesM. R. Bhalerao, DRTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 21, 22
Citation1982 (2) PTC 116
Judgement DateFebruary 01, 1982
CourtTrademark Tribunal

Judgment:

M. R. Bhalerao, DRTM.

These proceedings relate to the interlocutory petition filed on 23.11.1981 in Opposition No. DEL-2960 to amend the Notice of Opposition. Hearing was posted for 1st day of February, 1982. Shri L.B. Desai, Advocate appeared for the Opponents/Petitioners. None represented the Applicants/Respondents.

The relevant provisions relating to amendment are contained in Section 22 of the Act. Section 22 runs as follows:

"22. The Registrar may on such terms as he thinks just

at any time, whether before or after acceptance of an application for registration under section 18, permit the correction of any error in or in connection with the application or permit an amendment of the application; or

permit correction of any error in, or an amendment of, a notice of opposition or a counter-statement under Section 21."

It is obvious that clause (a) permits amendment of an application at any stage whether before or after its acceptance. Clause (b) permits correction of any error in, or an amendment of, a notice of opposition or a counter-statement under Section 21. In Tildeslev v. Harpar (1978) 10 Ch. D 393, it was observed that leave to amend ought not be refused unless the court was satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder had done some injury to the other side which could not be compensated by payment of costs or otherwise. This rule of Law has been well established and has been often accepted as corrected. Bramwell, L.J., observed: "I have had much to do in Chambers with applications for leave to amend, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that this humble branch of learning is very familiar to me. My practice has always been to give leave to amend unless I have been satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide, or that, by his blunder, he had done some injury to his Opponent which could not be compensated for by costs or otherwise." The said rule has been approved by the Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Dalgonda Shidgonda Patil, A.I.R. 1957 SC 363 and the same has been referred to by the Delhi High Court in F.A.O. 84...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT