https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196741 The court found in favor of the plaintiff on all issues. It held that the defendant's advertisement referred to the plaintiff's soap, disparaged it, and attacked its goodwill. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not guilty of suppressing facts and that the suit was not barred by relevant acts. The plaintiff was awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-, an injunction against the advertisement, and costs of the suit. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Dec 2017 14:09:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196741 The court found in favor of the plaintiff on all issues. It held that the defendant's advertisement referred to the plaintiff's soap, disparaged it, and attacked its goodwill. The court ruled that the plaintiff was not guilty of suppressing facts and that the suit was not barred by relevant acts. The plaintiff was awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5,00,000/-, an injunction against the advertisement, and costs of the suit. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196741