https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197712 An appeal lay from an ex parte ad interim injunction and from the order vacating it because interlocutory orders under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 4 CPC are appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r), without needing to qualify as a Letters Patent judgment. The plea of res judicata failed because the earlier connected proceedings involved different advertisements, the interim order had not finally decided the issues, and the summary dismissal of the earlier appeal did not conclusively affirm the merits. In a disparagement action, the court found a prima facie case where the impugned advertisement arguably referred to the plaintiff's goods and was potentially false or disparaging, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo. The vacating order was set aside and the injunction restored. en-us Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Mar 2018 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197712 An appeal lay from an ex parte ad interim injunction and from the order vacating it because interlocutory orders under Order 39 Rules 1, 2 and 4 CPC are appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(r), without needing to qualify as a Letters Patent judgment. The plea of res judicata failed because the earlier connected proceedings involved different advertisements, the interim order had not finally decided the issues, and the summary dismissal of the earlier appeal did not conclusively affirm the merits. In a disparagement action, the court found a prima facie case where the impugned advertisement arguably referred to the plaintiff's goods and was potentially false or disparaging, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo. The vacating order was set aside and the injunction restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197712