{"id":267530,"date":"2008-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-11T11:54:28","modified_gmt":"2018-03-11T06:24:28","slug":"sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/25710\/2007\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nTHE\nHIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 25710 of 2007\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSANYO\nCERAMICS - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSANYO\nELECTRIC CO. LTD. &amp; 2 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nDR\nRAJESH H ACHARYA for\nPetitioner(s) : 1,MS JAYSHRI H PADHYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR\nMANAV A MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR HARIN P RAVAL for\nRespondent(s) : 2, \nMR HRIDAY BUCH for Respondent(s) : 2, \nNOTICE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) :\n3, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner wants to file rejoinder for which learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents has no objection. Such may be filed<br \/>\nwithin two weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner, by this petition, has challenged the order passed by the<br \/>\nIntellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8216;the Board??) dated 16.11.2006 whereby, the matter is sent to the<br \/>\nRegistrar of Trade Marks to consider the evidence of opposition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">3.\tHeard<br \/>\nMs.R.M. Shah for the petitioner and Mr.Saurabh Banerjee with Mr.Mehta<br \/>\nfor respondent No.1.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">4.\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing for both the sides are in agreement on the point<br \/>\nthat the issue arising in this petition are the same as were<br \/>\nconsidered by this Court in its decision dated 25.07.2008 in Special<br \/>\nCivil Application No.9672 of 2006. In the said order, it was observed<br \/>\ninter alia as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">?S3.\tThe<br \/>\ncontention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the Board has<br \/>\nrelied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Court in the<br \/>\ncase of Wyeth Holdings Corporation and another Vs. Controller<br \/>\nGeneral of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, reported at 2007(34) PTC<br \/>\n1 (Guj.), whereby, Rule-50 is held to be directory. But the said<br \/>\napproach on the part of the Board is erroneous inasmuch as the<br \/>\njudgment of this Court in the above referred case is based on the<br \/>\ndecision of Full Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Hastimal<br \/>\nJain Trading as <a href=\"\/doc\/897787\/\" id=\"a_1\">Oswal Industries vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and<br \/>\nAnr<\/a>., reported at 2000 PTC 24 Delhi(FB)and<br \/>\nit was  submitted that subsequently the Delhi High Court had an<br \/>\noccasioned to consider the very decision of the Full Bench of Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in the case of Surinder Corporation, U.S.A., vs.<br \/>\nHindustan Lever Ltd., reported<br \/>\nat 2007 (35) PTC 388 (Delhi)<br \/>\nand the view of the Full Bench is not considered keeping in view the<br \/>\nchange in the language of the statute. Therefore, it was submitted<br \/>\nthat this Court may hold the provisions of Rule-50 as mandatory and<br \/>\nthere was no power with the Registrar to condone the delay and<br \/>\nconsequently, the Board has committed an error in condoning the<br \/>\ndelay.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">4.\tThe<br \/>\nlanguage of Rule-50, if read as it is, it can be said that the powers<br \/>\nof the Registrar to consider opposition are controlled. However, such<br \/>\ncontrolling  of the power of the Registrar in capacity as quasi<br \/>\njudicial authority, may not be read by the Court in every case as<br \/>\nmandatory and in a given case on consideration of the scheme of the<br \/>\nAct read with the powers to be exercised as that of quasi judicial<br \/>\nauthority, the Constitutional court while interpreting the section or<br \/>\nrule may hold to be directory keeping in view the purpose and the<br \/>\nobjects of the Act. The reference may be made to the decision of the<br \/>\nApex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association,<br \/>\nT.N. V\/s. Union of India,<br \/>\nreported at (2005)6 SCC 344,<br \/>\nwherein, the Apex Court, while considering the amendment in the Code<br \/>\nof Civil Procedure observed, inter alia, at para-30 and 31, as under:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t?S30.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\tWhile examining the scope of the proviso to order 17 Rule 1(1) that<br \/>\n\tmore than three adjournments shall not be granted, it is to be kept<br \/>\n\tin view that the proviso to order 17 Rule 1(2) incorporating clauses\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t(a) to (e) by Act 104 of 1976 has been retained. Clause (b)<br \/>\n\tstipulates that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a<br \/>\n\tparty, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that<br \/>\n\tparty. The proviso to order 17 Rule  1(1) and order 17 Rule 1(2)<br \/>\n\thave to be read together. So read, Order 17 does not forbid grant of<br \/>\n\tadjournment where the circumstances are beyond the control of the<br \/>\n\tparty. In such a case, there is no restriction on the number of<br \/>\n\tadjournments to be granted. It cannot be said that even if the<br \/>\n\tcircumstances are beyond the control of a party, after having<br \/>\n\tobtained the third adjournment, no further adjournment would be<br \/>\n\tgranted.  There may be cases beyond the control of a party despite<br \/>\n\tthe party having obtained three adjournments. For instance, a party<br \/>\n\tmay be suddenly hospitalised on account of some serious ailment or<br \/>\n\tthere may be serious accident or some act of God leading to<br \/>\n\tdevastation. It cannot be said that though the circumstances may be<br \/>\n\tbeyond the control of a party, further adjournment cannot be granted<br \/>\n\tbecause of the restriction of three adjournments as provided in the<br \/>\n\tproviso to Order 17 Rule 1.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t31.In<br \/>\n\tsome extreme cases, it may become necessary to grant adjournment<br \/>\n\tdespite the fact that three adjournments have already been granted<br \/>\n\t(take the example of the Bhopal gas tragedy, Gujarat earthquake and<br \/>\n\triots, and devastation on account of the tsunami). Ultimately, it<br \/>\n\twould depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, on the<br \/>\n\tbasis whereof the court would decide to grant or refuse adjournment.<br \/>\n\tThe provision for costs and higher costs has been made because of<br \/>\n\tthe practice having been developed to award only nominal costs even<br \/>\n\twhen adjournment  on payment of costs is granted. Ordinarily, where<br \/>\n\tthe costs or higher costs are awarded, the same should be realistic,<br \/>\n\tand as far as possible actual costs that had to be incurred by the<br \/>\n\tother party shall be awarded where the adjournment is found to be<br \/>\n\tavoidable , but is being granted n account of either negligence or<br \/>\n\tcasual approach of a party or is being sought to  delay the progress<br \/>\n\tof the case or onany such reason. Further, to save the proviso to<br \/>\n\tOrder 17 Rule 1(1) from the vice of <a href=\"\/doc\/367586\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 14<\/a> of the Constitution,<br \/>\n\tit is necessary to read it down so as not to take away the<br \/>\n\tdiscretion of the court in the extreme hard cases noted above. The<br \/>\n\tlimitation of three adjournments would not apply where adjournments<br \/>\n\tis to be granted on account of circumstances which are beyond the<br \/>\n\tcontrol of a party. Even in cases which may not strictly come within<br \/>\n\tthe category of circumstances beyond the control of a party, the<br \/>\n\tcourt by resorting to the provision of higher costs which can also<br \/>\n\tinclude punitive costs in the discretion of the court, adjournment<br \/>\n\tbeyond three can be granted having regard to the injustice that may<br \/>\n\tresult on refusal thereof, with reference to peculiar facts of a<br \/>\n\tcase. We may, however, add that grant of any adjournment, let alone<br \/>\n\tthe first, second or third adjournment, is not a right of a party.<br \/>\n\tThe grant of adjournment by a court has to be on a party showing<br \/>\n\tspecial and extraordinary circumstances. It cannot be in routine.<br \/>\n\tWhile considering the prayer for grant of adjournment, it is<br \/>\n\tnecessary to keep in mind the legislative intent to restrict the<br \/>\n\tgrant of adjournments.??\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">5.\tIt<br \/>\nmay also observe that while interpreting other provisions also, such<br \/>\npowers with the Court while trying the suit under the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure for extending the time, have been read. Therefore, reading<br \/>\nsuch powers holding the procedural aspect to be directory, are not<br \/>\nthe principle unknown while interpreting the statutory provisions. If<br \/>\nthe judgment of this court in the case of Wyeth Holdings<br \/>\nCorporation &amp; another (supra), is considered in light of the<br \/>\naforesaid position, it appears that the Court with a view to save<br \/>\nRule has held the provision as directory. The Board has followed the<br \/>\ndecision of this Court, therefore, such an approach on the part of<br \/>\nthe Board  cannot be said as perverse exercise of discretion  which<br \/>\nmay call for interference by this Court in a petition under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_2\">Article<br \/>\n227<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">6.\tThe<br \/>\nattempt on the part of the learned Counsel to take a different view<br \/>\nin view of the subsequent decision of Delhi High Court in the case of<br \/>\n Surinder Corporation, USA (supra) cannot be countenance for<br \/>\ntwo reasons, one is that reading down of the statutory provisions<br \/>\nwith a view to leave room to the quasi judicial authority for<br \/>\nexercising the discretion and thereby  to enable them to render<br \/>\njustice to the fullest extent is not a principle unknown. Delhi High<br \/>\nCourt in the said decision  in the case of Surinder Corporation,<br \/>\nUSA (supra)  had no occasion to consider the matter from the said<br \/>\nangle. The second is that sitting in coordinate bench, the decision<br \/>\nis binding as per the principle of sound judicial discipline.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">7.\tLearned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner next contended that even if such a<br \/>\nprovisions of Rule is held to be directory,  the application must be<br \/>\nmade within period prior to the expiry of the outer limit and as was<br \/>\nnot done, the delay could not be condoned.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">8.\tEntertainment<br \/>\nof such contention would lead to interference with the discretion<br \/>\nexercised by the Board in the matter of condonation of delay which<br \/>\nthis Court while exercising powers under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_3\">Article 227<\/a> of the<br \/>\nConstitution, would not undertake unless it is so perverse which may<br \/>\ncause great injustice to the parties. In the present case, the<br \/>\ndiscretion is exercised in a manner that the opportunity is given to<br \/>\nthe otherside to put the opposition and to lead the evidence. Thereby<br \/>\nthe rights of the petitioner cannot be said as seriously prejudiced.<br \/>\nTherefore, it cannot be said that the exercise of the discretion is<br \/>\nso perverse which may call for the interference by this Court under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_4\">Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">9.\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that in the<br \/>\napplication for condonation of delay, no grounds are mentioned and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the Tribunal ought not to have condoned the delay.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">10.\tAs<br \/>\nsuch, the Tribunal has considered overall record and has exercised<br \/>\nthe discretion, also by awarding  the costs. Therefore, such exercise<br \/>\nof discretion cannot be said as perverse which may call for<br \/>\ninterference in exercise of the powers under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_5\">Article 227<\/a> of the<br \/>\nConstitution.??\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">5.\tSame<br \/>\nwill be the situation in the present case inasmuch as the provisions<br \/>\nare held to be directory and, therefore, the delay is condoned and<br \/>\nthe matter is to be considered after considering the opposition.<br \/>\nUnder these circumstances, in view of the aforesaid reasons, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that the prejudice is caused to the petitioner which<br \/>\nmay call for interference by this Court. Further if the aspects of<br \/>\nthe applicability of the Rule is to be considered, in view of the<br \/>\nreasons recorded hereinabove, no further discussion may be required.<br \/>\nTherefore, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the petition<br \/>\nis rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">(JAYANT<br \/>\nPATEL, J.)<\/p>\n<p>Hitesh<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/25710\/2007 8\/ 8 ORDER THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25710 of 2007 ========================================================= SANYO CERAMICS &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus SANYO ELECTRIC CO. LTD. &amp; 2 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-11T06:24:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-11T06:24:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1731,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-11T06:24:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-11T06:24:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-11T06:24:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008"},"wordCount":1731,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008","name":"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-11T06:24:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sanyo-vs-sanyo-on-28-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sanyo vs Sanyo on 28 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}