{"id":65587,"date":"2001-10-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001"},"modified":"2015-07-21T20:15:59","modified_gmt":"2015-07-21T14:45:59","slug":"lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 97 (2002) DLT 342<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Sikri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> A.K. Sikri, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. An interesting question relating to<br \/>\nterritorial jurisdiction of this court has been posed<br \/>\nin this case. The petitioner filed the application<br \/>\nunder Section 46 and 56 of the Trade and Merchandise<br \/>\nMarks Act(for short &#8216;Act&#8217;) for rectification of the<br \/>\nregistered trade mark No. 507445 as of 23th March, 1989<br \/>\nin class 9 of the IV Schedule of the Act. The trade<br \/>\nmark KUNDAN\/KUNDAN CAB is the subject matter of the<br \/>\naforesaid registration which is registered in the name<br \/>\nof the respondent No. 1. It is in respect of electrical<br \/>\naccessories and fittings including electrical switches,<br \/>\nmain switches, fuse units, wires and cables and<br \/>\nelectrical irons. The petitioner claims that it has<br \/>\nalso been using the trade mark KUNDAN\/KUNDAN CAB\/KUNDAN<br \/>\nCABLES INDIA in respect of these very goods since 1980<br \/>\nand when the petitioner came to know that the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 was also using the same trade mark, the<br \/>\npetitioner filed suit for permanent injunction in the<br \/>\ncourt of District Judge, Delhi. In the said suit, the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1 filed counter claims and it was<br \/>\ndisclosed that the trade mark KUNDAN\/KUNDAN CAB is<br \/>\nregistered in favor of the respondent No. 1. It is<br \/>\nbecause of this reason, the present petition is filed<br \/>\nby the petitioner for rectification and prayer is made<br \/>\nthe trade mark No. 507445 in Class 9 of IV Schedule be<br \/>\ncancelled\/expunged from the Register of Trade Marks.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The question of territorial jurisdiction<br \/>\narises in the following circumstances:\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. The respondent No. 2 herein, which is a firm,<br \/>\nwith its office at Chennai had filed an application for<br \/>\nregistration of the aforesaid trade marks. When the<br \/>\napplication was still pending, the respondent No. 2<br \/>\nassigned the trade mark KUNDAN in favor of respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1. This assignment application was allowed by the<br \/>\nRegistrar and accordingly the registration certificate<br \/>\nwas issued to the respondent No. 1. Since the<br \/>\napplication was filed in the Trade Mark Registry at<br \/>\nChennai, the objection of the respondents 1 &amp; 2 is that<br \/>\nthe application for rectification can be filed in the<br \/>\ncourt at Chennai only.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In support of the aforesaid submissions,<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondents 1 &amp; 2 submitted<br \/>\nthat Section 2(1)(h) of the Act defines High Court to<br \/>\nmean the High Court having jurisdiction under Section\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Under Section 3(b) of the Act, the High Court<br \/>\nhaving jurisdiction under this Act shall be the High<br \/>\nCourt within the limits of whose appellate jurisdiction<br \/>\nthe office of the Trade Mark Registry referred to in<br \/>\neach of the following cases is situated present<br \/>\npurposes Clause (b) is relevant and accordingly the<br \/>\napplication for registration of the said trade mark was<br \/>\nmade at the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai and it is in<br \/>\nthat office where the present trade mark is registered.<br \/>\nUnder Rule 4 of the Trade and Merchandise Mark Rules,<br \/>\n1959 (for short &#8216;Rules&#8217;) the appropriate office of the<br \/>\nTrade Mark Registry for the purposes of making the<br \/>\napplication for registration or for filing an<br \/>\napplication for rectification or for any proceedings<br \/>\nunder the Act and Rules for the purposes of the said<br \/>\ntrade mark registration and the instant rectification<br \/>\nis the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai. Further, the<br \/>\njurisdiction of the appropriate office cannot be<br \/>\naltered by change in principal place of business or<br \/>\naddress for service under Rule 5. Under Rules 6, the<br \/>\nRegistrar of Trade Marks has entered the appropriate<br \/>\noffice of the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai as the<br \/>\nappropriate office wherein the said trade mark has been<br \/>\nregistered and wherein the said application for<br \/>\nregistration was made. The same is also borne out by<br \/>\nthe advertisement of the said trade mark in the Trade<br \/>\nMark Journal No. 1045 at page 990 and a perusal thereof<br \/>\nshows that the principal place of business and the<br \/>\nappropriate office thereof is at Chennai as also for<br \/>\nregistration was also made before the Registrar of<br \/>\nTrade Marks at Chennai. Under Section 5 of the Act,<br \/>\nthe Government of India has established Trade Mark<br \/>\nRegistries in five regions covering the whole of India<br \/>\nhaving jurisdiction over their notified States and<br \/>\nterritories. The five regions having their respective<br \/>\nTrade Mark Registries are at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi,<br \/>\nAhmedabad and Chennai. The Registrar of Trade Marks at<br \/>\nChennai exercises jurisdiction over the States of<br \/>\nAndhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and the<br \/>\nUnion Territories of Pondicherry and Lakshadweep<br \/>\nislands. The appropriate office of the trade mark<br \/>\nregistry where the said trade mark was registered and<br \/>\nthe said registry is situate is at Chennai and the<br \/>\nappropriate High Court as per Section 3 of the Act is<br \/>\nat Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. In support of his submission learned counsel<br \/>\nrelied upon the following three judgments as well:\n<\/p>\n<p> 1.  Priya Enterprises v. Prestige Housewares (India) Ltd. reported in  1998 PTC(18) 539.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2.   Satya Narayan Khub Chand and Ors. v. Rama Chandra Laxmi Narayan .\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.   Vikas Manufacturing Company v. Maharaj Manufacturing Company reported in  1981 PTC 87.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The submission of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner, on that other hand, was that the<br \/>\napplication for registration was filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 2 with the Chennai office on 23rd March,<br \/>\n1989, it was published in the Journal on 16th December,<br \/>\n1992 and the application for assigning the trade mark<br \/>\nby respondent No. 2 in favor of the respondent No. 1 was<br \/>\nfiled on 17th February, 1993 which was allowed on 14th<br \/>\nApril, 1993 itself. Thus the respondent No. 1 which is<br \/>\na party in Delhi, got itself substituted for respondent<br \/>\nNo. 2 and pursued with the application. The certificate<br \/>\nof registration was granted on 15th November, 1994 in<br \/>\nfavor of the respondent No. 1 which has its office at<br \/>\nDelhi. On the basis of these facts, learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner submitted that provisions of Section<br \/>\n3(a) would get attracted as per which this court has<br \/>\nthe territorial jurisdiction to try the instant<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. It was his further submission that the<br \/>\napplication for rectification has to be decided as a<br \/>\nsuit in view of the position laid down in Section 107<br \/>\nof the Act. He also referred to the other provisions<br \/>\nrelating to rectification and correction of the<br \/>\nregister i.e. Section 56 and Section 108 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to<br \/>\nthe issue involved.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. Section 3 of the Act deals with the<br \/>\njurisdictional aspect and stipulates that as to which<br \/>\nHigh Court shall have the jurisdiction to deal with the<br \/>\ncases under different circumstances. Five different<br \/>\nsituations are mentioned in Clause (a) to (e) of<br \/>\nSection 3. We are not concerned with Clause (c) to\n<\/p>\n<p>(e). Whereas the petitioner is relying upon Clause (a)<br \/>\nof Section 3 the respondents 1 &amp; 2 are taking shelter<br \/>\nunder Clause (b). In order to appreciate the rival&#8217;s<br \/>\ncontention, it would be appropriate to reproduce the<br \/>\nprovisions of these two Clauses in the first instance:\n<\/p>\n<p>  3. High Court having jurisdiction:- The<br \/>\nHigh Court having jurisdiction under this<br \/>\nAct shall be the High Court within the<br \/>\nlimits of whose appellant jurisdiction<br \/>\nthe office of the Trade Marks Registry<br \/>\nreferred to in each of the following<br \/>\ncases is situate, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) in relation to a trade mark on the<br \/>\nRegister of Trade Marks at the<br \/>\ncommencement of this Act, the office of<br \/>\nthe Trade Marks Registry within whose<br \/>\nterritorial limits the principal place of<br \/>\nbusiness in India of the proprietor of<br \/>\nthe trade mark as entered in the register<br \/>\nat such commencement is situate;\n<\/p>\n<p> (c) in relation to a trade mark for which<br \/>\nan application for registration of<br \/>\npending at or is made on or after the<br \/>\ncommencement of this Act, the office of<br \/>\nthe Trade Marks Registry within whose<br \/>\nterritorial limits the principal place of<br \/>\nbusiness in India of the applicant as<br \/>\ndisclosed in his application is situate.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Clause (a) shall have no application in the<br \/>\npresent case simply because it is applicable in those<br \/>\ncases where the trade mark has already been registered<br \/>\nat the time of commencement of the Act and in that case<br \/>\nthe office of the trade mark registry within whose<br \/>\nterritorial limit the principal place of business in<br \/>\nIndia of the proprietor of the trade mark as entered in<br \/>\nthe register at such commencement is situate. This<br \/>\nprovision takes care of all those trade marks which<br \/>\nwere already registered at the time when this Act came<br \/>\ninto force and does not deal with applications for<br \/>\nregistration filed after the commencement of the Act.<br \/>\nIn the present case application for registration of<br \/>\ntrade mark was filed much after the Act came into<br \/>\nforce. The provisions of Clause (b) are clearly<br \/>\nattracted in such case which, inter alia, deals with<br \/>\nthose situations also where the application for<br \/>\nregistration is made on or after the commencement of<br \/>\nthe Act. In that case the office of the Trade Mark<br \/>\nRegistry whthin whose territorial limits the principal<br \/>\nplace of business in India of the applicant as<br \/>\ndisclosed in his application is situate. Here the<br \/>\napplication was filed by the respondent No. 2 in the<br \/>\nTrade Mark Registry at Chennai. The principal place of<br \/>\nbusiness as disclosed in his application was Chennai.<br \/>\nSimply because during the pendency of the application,<br \/>\nthe assignment was made in favor of the respondent<br \/>\nNo. 1 would not alter the position in law. Afterall the<br \/>\napplication remained pending with the Trade Mark<br \/>\nRegistry at Chennai where it is ultimately registered<br \/>\nand the register containing the registration of the<br \/>\nrespondent No. 1&#8217;s trade mark is kept at Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. Let us now examine the position from another<br \/>\nangle. In those cases where the registration is done<br \/>\nby the Trade Mark Registry of a particular region and<br \/>\nsubsequently there is an assignment by the trade mark<br \/>\nowner in favor of another party which is outside the<br \/>\njurisdiction of that Trade Mark Registry, such<br \/>\nsubsequent assignment would not alter or affect the<br \/>\nposition in any manner. The appropriate office of the<br \/>\nTrade Mark Registry would continue to remain the same<br \/>\nand this conclusion is inevitable on the combined<br \/>\nreading of Sections 2(1)(h), 3(b), and 5 of the Act as<br \/>\nwell as Rules 4, 5 &amp; 6 of the Rules. This is also the<br \/>\nratio of the three judgments cited by learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, emphasis is on<br \/>\nthe place where the application is made initially.<br \/>\nAfter making the application assignment takes place<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the application or after the<br \/>\nregistration of the trade mark would not make any<br \/>\ndifference in law. Thus I find force in the arguments<br \/>\nof learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Under<br \/>\nSection 23(1)(b) of the Act, the trade mark when<br \/>\nregistered shall be registered as of the date of making<br \/>\nof the said application and it is that date that shall<br \/>\nbe deemed to be the dt of registration. The date on<br \/>\nwhich the application of registration was made in<br \/>\nMarch, 23 1989 which is clear from the Trade Mark<br \/>\nJournal. The purpose of confining the trade mark<br \/>\nregistration to one jurisdiction\/office for the<br \/>\npurposes of its rectification under the provisions of<br \/>\nSections 2(1)(h), 3, 5 and Rules 4, 5 and 6 is,<br \/>\ninter alia, to facilitate rectification proceedings so<br \/>\nthat an aggrieved party does not have to run around to<br \/>\nvarious courts should the assignment be effected in<br \/>\nvarious different jurisdiction. Likewise, even the<br \/>\nregistered proprietor gets confined to one jurisdiction<br \/>\nwherein the validity\/removal of his mark can be<br \/>\ndetermined. The Legislature has chosen the situs of<br \/>\nthe trade mark as the place for conferring territorial<br \/>\njurisdiction which continuous to be at the trade mark<br \/>\nregistry at Chennai. Even in a civil action for<br \/>\ninjunction the suit can be filed at a place where the<br \/>\nmark is registered even though the person infringing<br \/>\nthe registered mark does not carry out its impugned<br \/>\nactivities in that place. (Refer: 1.   Amrutanjan Ltd.<br \/>\nv. Ashwin Fine Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals reported<br \/>\nin  1991(2) A.L.R. 384(MAD),  2.   K.B. Venkatachala<br \/>\nMudaliar v. Vanaja Match Works reported in  1990<br \/>\nPTC 259 and 3.   Ramu Hosieries rep. by M. Murugeshan v.<br \/>\nRamu Hosieries, rep. by Pandela Ramu and Anr.<br \/>\nreported in  1999 PTC 183.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. Consequently this application which is filed<br \/>\nby the petitioner is not maintainable in this court and<br \/>\nought to have been instituted in the High Court of<br \/>\nMadras at Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The petition is accordingly returned for<br \/>\npresentation before the appropriate court.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 Equivalent citations: 97 (2002) DLT 342 Author: A Sikri Bench: A Sikri JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. 1. An interesting question relating to territorial jurisdiction of this court has been posed in this case. The petitioner filed the application [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65587","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 - 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\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-21T14:45:59+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T14:45:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\",\"name\":\"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-21T14:45:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 - 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\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-21T14:45:59+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T14:45:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001"},"wordCount":2024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001","name":"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-21T14:45:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakha-ram-sharma-vs-balar-marketing-pvt-ltd-and-ors-on-10-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakha Ram Sharma vs Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. on 10 October, 2001"}]},{"@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\/65587","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=65587"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65587\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65587"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65587"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65587"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}