1930 (8) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....present case and although Mr. Justice Blackwell in a latter case followed the decision of Mr. Justice K. Kemp, he still thought his original point of view was right. Now, the point is this. The plaintiffs are a company registered in England and also registered under section 277 of the Indian Companies Act, and they commenced this action to obtain an injunction to restrain the defendants from importing and/or selling certain article under a trade-mark similar to that of the plaintiffs, and the plaint was signed by Mr. C.M. Eastley, described as a partner in the firm of Messrs. Little & Co., attorneys for and duly constituted attorneys of the plaintiffs. There is a power-of-attorney, which is on the record, given by the plaintiffs to Mr. E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....argued in the first place that O. VI, r. 14 does not apply to a company and a decision of the Privy Council in Delhi and London Bank v. Oldham ILR 21 Cal. 60, is cited as an authority on that behalf. The passage particularly relied on is at page 142, where their Lordships say that: "Their Lordships are of opinion that section 51 of the Code, [ to which r. 14, of O. VI, now corresponds] which regulates proceedings taken by or on behalf of ordinary plaintiffs, does not apply to such a case as the present, but that this case must be decided with reference only to section 435, which expressly applies to corporations..........." Section 435 is now replaced by O. XXIX, r. 1. I think that, when the facts in that case are looked at, the Privy....