Case: Hindustan Cocoa Products Limited, Bombay and Anr. Vs Ram Krishana Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Pune. Trademark Tribunal

CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Dawda, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Mohan Dewan, Advocate
JudgesP. N. Havanur, ARTM
IssueTrade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 - Rules 55, 56; Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 22(b), 97(c); Civil Procedure Code - Order 47 Rule 1
Judgement DateNovember 25, 1985
CourtTrademark Tribunal


P. N. Havanur, ARTM.

1. These proceedings arise out of an application for review dated 9.3.1984, filed by Hindustan Cocoa Products Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the Hindustan Cocoa) to review the order dated 10.1.1984 of the learned Assistant Registrar dismissing the Interlocutory Petition dated 28.7.1983 filed by Hindustan Cocoa Products Limited, a request on form TM -- 16 dated 6.3.1984 filed by Cadbury India Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners/ opponents) under section 22 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for amendment of the Petitioners/ Opponents' name.

2. It would be pertinent to give a brief background under which review application under Section 97 (C) has been filed. Hindustan Cocoa filed Interlocutory Petition dated 28.7.1983 under Rule 56 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 seeking leave of the Tribunal to take on record an affidavit of Janardan Govind Kamat dated 15th July, 1983 as evidence in reply and also invoices of the trade declaration of Mavajibhai Bhanaji Soni. Hariram Maganlal Chandra, Suresh, Hiralal Parekh, Raghunath, Ramnarayan Dagha and Vallabhdas J. Shah all dated 31.1.1981 and 19.4.1981 which have been exhibited to the affidavit of Janardan Govind Kamat as Exhibit 'A'. The learned Asstt. Registrar after hearing the Hindustan Cocoa and also the applicants M/s Ramkrishna Food Products Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the applicants/respondents) and considering all the material on record in connection with the said Interlocutory Petition dismissed the said Interlocutory Petition and directed that main hearing to be fixed in the matter. The findings of the learned Asstt. Registrar and the basis on which he has dismissed the Interlocutory Petition are set out in detail in his order dated 10.1.1984.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 10.1.1984 Hindustan Cocoa have filed an application for review accompanied by statement of grounds in accordance with Section 97(c) of the Act which is worded as follows:

" The Registrar may, on an application made in the prescribed manner, review his own decision".

4. The said section does not lay down the grounds on which the review will be considered by the Tribunal. Nor does it give guidelines for considering the review application. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code lays down the grounds on which are the review application may be submitted and these as follows:-

5.Under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, a review application can be entertained only on the basis of one or more of the following grounds:-

(1) On the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicants' knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed...

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