2006 PLP 1127 (CLD)
Authorized Signatory and another — Appellants Versus MEHRAN BAKERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1127 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Authorized Signatory and another — Appellants Versus MEHRAN BAKERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1127 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1127 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1127 (CLD) (Authorized Signatory and another — Appellants Versus MEHRAN BAKERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Chief Executive — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 73
Suit for infringement of trade mark and for passing off action
Valid authority to institute such suit
Question about the valid authority qua the institution of such suit is that of fact, having legal implication, but such fact could only be determined by the Trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, in the absence of which, the judgment is illegal and cannot sustain.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellants, filed a suit against the respondent for the infringement of their trade mark and for passing off action.
2. The respondent contested the matter by filing a written statement and, inter alia, took up the plea, that the suit has not been filed by an authorized person. However, the learned trial Court while considering the application for the grant of temporary injunction, dismissed the suit as well as holding that the same has not been 4nstituted by an authorized person.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that according to the record, the power of attorney of appellant No.1 in the name of appellant No.2, duly authorizing him to file the suit, .was available on the record and this vital document has been glaringly overlooked by the learned trial Court. He also submits that the question of authority was a question of act, which should have been determined after framing of proper issues and enabling the appellants to prove the same, but the learned trial Court has proceeded with the matter injudiciously and with undue haste, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
4. The respondent has already been proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16-5-2005, therefore, ex parte arguments have been heard.
5. Obviously, the question about the valid authority qua the institution of the suit is that of fact, having legal implication, but such fact could only be determined by the A learned trial Court after framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, in the absence of which, the impugned judgment undoubtedly is illegal and cannot sustain. In the light of above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. M.B.A./G-38/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.