TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioners have not been in a position to substantiate their claims that the third and the fourth respondents are interfering with the transportation of the empty beer and brandy bottles, as claimed by the petitioners, arbitrarily, without the authority of law. W.P. dismissed. - W.P. Nos. 1295, 1296 of 2012 , M.P. Nos. 1, M.P. Nos. 2 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 9-2-2012 - JAICHANDREN M., J. For the Appellant : R. Nalliyappan For the Respondents : Jaya Prakash Narayanan, Additional Government Pleader, ORDER :- M. JAICHANDREN J.- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Since, the facts and the circumstances arising for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had submitted that, as per section 22 of the Designs Act, 2000, no one should be restrained, without an order of interim injunction from the District Court or any other court, as defined under the said section. While so, neither the respondents, nor the distillery companies could infringe on the right of the petitioners to transport the empty bottles, even if there may be restrictions in the sale of the contents of such bottles. 6. He had further submitted that the third and the fourth respondents have been stopping the vehicles belonging to the petitioners, which are carrying empty bottles to other States, without the authority of law. The first information reports have been file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by this court, especially when the petitioners had not shown sufficient cause or reason for this court to pass such an order. 9. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available this court is of the considered view that a general direction cannot be issued by this court, as prayed for by the petitioners, in the above writ petitions. It is a well-settled position in law that no blanket order can be passed by the courts of law, especially, when the relief sought is vague and general in nature. The petitioners have not been in a position to substantiate their claims that the third and the fourth respondents are interfering with the transportation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
