Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

Programme: BACHELOR OF ARTS & BACHELOR OF LAWS (HONOURS) AND

BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION & BACHELOR OF LAWS


(HONOURS)

Batch : 2017-2022

Semester : VII

Course : Law of Injunction

Course Code : 0101250711/0101260711

Date : Maximum Marks : 30

Day : Time : 10.00 am to 11.00 am

Instructions:
 All questions are compulsory &carry equal marks

Q.1 X enters Y’s Land daily without Y’s consent. Y, without talking to X about the CO
issue, approaches the court to seek an injunction order against X to restrict him NO 1
from entering his land again. Will the court grant an injunction in favour of Y?

If Yes / No, elaborate on the factors that determine the court granting or
refusing to grant an injunction. Discuss with illustrations and relevant case laws.

OR

..2..
..2..

Q.1 Respondents (initially plaintiffs) are the original users of the trademark CO
“WHIRLPOOL” for their electrical goods including washing machines since NO 2
1937. The trademark was registered in 1956-57 in India and renewed
periodically. However, in 1977, registrations lapsed on account of failure to
apply for renewing the trademark. Later, in 1988 appellants (initially
defendants) applied with Registrar of trademarks for the trademark
“WHIRLPOOL” for certain goods including washing machines.
Post this application, information was released by advertising in the trademark
journal and accordingly respondents filed an objection. The registrar dismissed
the objection and allowed the plaintiffs application for registration on the
grounds of the proposed user. The respondents filed an action for passing off
and grant of an interlocutory injunction.

Answer the following: (5 marks each)

a. Was the decision of the registrar legally incorrect? Provide your analysis
on the order passed in the above case with illustrations and relevant case
laws.
b. Discuss with relevant case laws, whether an interlocutory Injunction can
be granted in an passing off Action against the proprietor of a registered
Trademark.

Q.2 “The Court should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex parte ad CO
interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to NO 3
the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concern parties
appropriate order should be passed.” [Ramrameshwari Devi and ors. Vs.
Nirmala Devi and ors., Civil Appeal No.49/2011]

Do you agree with the above statement? If Yes/ No, discuss the factors that
should be weighed in by the courts in granting an Ex-Parte temporary
injunction. Explain with illustrations and case laws.

OR

Q.2 "It is the duty of a Court of Equity, "to adopt its practice and course of CO
proceedings, as far as possible, to the existing state of society and to apply its NO 2
jurisdiction to all those new cases which from the progress daily made in the
affairs of men must continually arise and not from too strict an adherence to
forms and rules established under very different circumstances decline to
administer justice and to enforce rights for which there is no other remedy."

With respect to the above statement, explain the origin and development of Law
of Injunctions in India with illustrations and relevant case laws.

..3..
Q.3 Write short notes on Any 2 CO
NO.
a) Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. Vs. Coca Cola Co. AIR 1995 SC
2372 3
b) Vacating an Injunction. 5
c) Types of Injunctions. 4
5
d) Circumstances when injunction cannot be granted.

You might also like