https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310170 The Delhi HC held that an intra-court appeal against an order allowing amendment of the plaint was maintainable because the impugned order arose under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Commercial Courts Act appeal provision was enabling. It further held that the Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to finally decide a substantive amendment, since Rule 3(2) permits only formal amendments. The court upheld the plaint amendment to plead prior user from 1994 instead of 2004, finding it necessary to determine the real controversy in the infringement and passing off suit, not altering the suit's essential nature, and causing no irremediable prejudice. en-us Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Oct 2023 17:27:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310170 The Delhi HC held that an intra-court appeal against an order allowing amendment of the plaint was maintainable because the impugned order arose under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Commercial Courts Act appeal provision was enabling. It further held that the Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to finally decide a substantive amendment, since Rule 3(2) permits only formal amendments. The court upheld the plaint amendment to plead prior user from 1994 instead of 2004, finding it necessary to determine the real controversy in the infringement and passing off suit, not altering the suit's essential nature, and causing no irremediable prejudice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310170