TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC for interim injunctions</h1> <h3>AGI Logistics INC and Ors. Versus Sher Jang Bhadhur and Ors.</h3> The court found that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, leading to the vacation of the interim ... - Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.2. Interim injunction and its vacation.3. Application by Defendant No. 7 regarding business name change.4. Withdrawal of applications by plaintiffs.5. Dismissal of applications due to the vacation of the interim injunction.Summary:Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC:The primary issue was whether the plaintiffs complied with the mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC after obtaining an ex parte ad interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to deliver or send by registered post within one week, a copy of the application for ad interim injunction, the affidavit, the plaint, and the documents relied upon. The statutory requirement is unambiguous, and non-compliance with this provision necessitated the vacation of the interim order.Interim Injunction and its Vacation:The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, citing precedents such as A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan and Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD. The plaintiffs' failure to comply with the statutory requirements led to the vacation of the interim order dated 22nd July 2009. The court insisted on strict compliance to prevent plaintiffs from enjoying an ex parte ad interim stay indefinitely by pleading genuine mistakes.Application by Defendant No. 7 Regarding Business Name Change:Defendant No. 7 sought to restrain the plaintiffs from impeding its business under a changed name. The court noted that the plaintiffs' grievance was the alleged infringement of their trademark by Defendant No. 7. The plaintiffs were permitted to file an affidavit listing clients allegedly approached by the defendants within two weeks. The application was listed for further consideration on 27th October 2009.Withdrawal of Applications by Plaintiffs:The plaintiffs' counsel withdrew IA No. 12060/2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn.Dismissal of Applications Due to Vacation of Interim Injunction:IA No. 12061/2009 and IA No. 12066/2009 were dismissed as they became infructuous following the vacation of the interim injunction. Defendant No. 8 was advised to file an appropriate application seeking directions in accordance with law.Further Proceedings:IA Nos. 12062, 12064, and 12065/2009 were listed for hearing on 27th October 2009.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
