TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of C. Ex. & Customs versus Saurashtra Cement Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], the penalty could not be levied under Rule 25 of the Rules. - Appeal disposed of - CEA No. 6 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2016 - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, CJ And Sureshwar Thakur, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Mahajan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ories Limited versus Medical Technologies Limited and others, reported in (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 672, has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by other High Courts. It is profitable to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: 7. The primary argument of the Defendant Appellant is that it had received registration for its trademark ROFOL in Class V o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction. However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants are the same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless restraint is displayed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
