AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srl.
No.",Particulars,"No. of
Items",Amount
1.,Petrol Tanks of the Vehicles of Hero Motorcycles,1988,"79,92,000/-
2.,Chain Covers of the Vehicle of Hero Motorcycles,1300,"15,60,000/-
3.,Stickers of the Hero Company,10000,"5,00,000/-
4.,Dye for making body parts of Hero company,5,"25,00,000/-
5.,Petrol tanks of two-wheeler vehicle of Bajaj Company,1096,"43,84,000/-
6.,Chain Covers of two-wheeler vehicle of Bajaj Company,2170,"26,04,000/-
7.,Stickers of Bajaj Company for two wheelers,"15,000","7,50,000
8.,Dye for making body parts of Bajaj Company,7,"35,00,000/-
9.,Petrol Tank for two-wheeler of TVS Company,248,"9,92,000/-
10.,Chain Cover for two-wheeler of TVS Company,710,"8,52,000/-
11.,Stickers for two-wheeler TVS Company,"4,200","2,10,000/-
12.,Dye for making body parts of TVS company,2,"10,00,000/-
13.,Punching Machine for making body parts.,3,"1,25,00,000/-
below.,,,
As against the aforesaid submissions, learned APP Mr. J.K. Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the petition",,,
and has submitted that if the machinery- muddamal articles, if released, such duplicate material will again be manufactured and produced by the",,,
petitioner and hence, for that reason also, irrespective of anything, the contentions which have been raised are the matter of trial and hence, no release",,,
in favour of the petitioner be made. On the contrary, learned Trial Judge has extensively gone through the material and passed the detailed order,",,,
which on the basis of the same material may not be disturbed in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. Hence, Mr. Shah has requested not to grant",,,
any relief to the petitioner.,,,
Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, prima facie, it appears that both the",,,
Courts below have exercised the jurisdiction vested in law after considering the relevant submissions made and there is no distinguishable material,,,
pointed out before this Court to exercise the jurisdiction in any form and hence, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have exercised",,,
their respective discretion keeping in view the contentions and the material on record. Hence, no irregularity is found by this Court.",,,
Additionally, while looking at the decisions and examining as to whether any irregularity is committed or not, the Court finds from perusal of the",,,
order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.954 of 2019 reflecting on page 46 onwards that exercise of discretion is after proper application of,,,
mind. The detailed reasons which are assigned are sufficient enough to indicate that exercise of discretion is in just and proper manner. On the,,,
contrary, it has been specifically taken note of the fact that only purpose of use of the machinery, this application is submitted for the purpose of",,,
release in favour of the petitioner and there is a serious apprehension voiced out and considered by the Courts below that again the same kind of,,,
activity is likely to be indulged if the machinery and the muddamal are released in favour of the petitioner and therefore, every aspect appears to have",,,
been considered by the Courts below.,,,
Apart from the above, looking at the order, it has also been found that in view of Section 115(5) of the Trademark Act, application will have to be",,,
filed within a period of 15 days. But, here in the present case, the same appears to have been submitted beyond 15 days, which aspect has also been",,,
considered by the Courts below. Apart from that, not only the Courts below have considered the relevant provisions of law but have also considered",,,
the preposition of law laid down by the decisions which were cited. Hence, the entire exercise is found to be just and proper and there is no perversity",,,
nor any material irregularity is reflected in the order passed by the Courts below. Hence, keeping in view the proposition of law, laid down by the",,,
Apex Court in several decisions on the issue of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that in absence of any perversity or",,,
material irregularity, no case is made out to call for any interference.",,,
Additionally, the Court is also not impressed about the submission made on the technical violation by citing the relevant provisions. Since the said",,,
issues and the contentions are the matter of trial, the Court is unable to accept the said submission since the Court is called upon just to deal with the",,,
issue of release of muddamal. Hence, for the reasons stated herein-above and the reasons which are stated by the Courts below, no case is made out",,,
by the petitioner to call for any interference.,,,
Additionally, while dealing with the present petition, the Court has taken note of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of",,,
Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal reported in (2013)9 SCC 374 (Para 6 and 7), and is of the opinion that no case is made out to grant",,,
any relief. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.",,,