https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771020 The Delhi HC allowed a petition under Article 227 challenging a trial court's order dated 17.01.2025 in MISC DJ/3623/2024. The HC held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to suo moto commence proceedings regarding confiscation and non-release of counterfeit goods bearing respondent's trademark. Despite petitioners' participation in earlier proceedings, the HC found patent error apparent on record as the trial court acted without statutory jurisdiction. The HC exercised superintendence powers to prevent traversity of justice, setting aside the impugned order and all related proceedings, noting the original suit was already decreed on 19.10.2024. en-us Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 May 2025 08:53:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771020 The Delhi HC allowed a petition under Article 227 challenging a trial court's order dated 17.01.2025 in MISC DJ/3623/2024. The HC held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to suo moto commence proceedings regarding confiscation and non-release of counterfeit goods bearing respondent's trademark. Despite petitioners' participation in earlier proceedings, the HC found patent error apparent on record as the trial court acted without statutory jurisdiction. The HC exercised superintendence powers to prevent traversity of justice, setting aside the impugned order and all related proceedings, noting the original suit was already decreed on 19.10.2024. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771020