Arb.A./7/2000 of K and Co. Vs State Of Sikkim on 27 September 2000

SerialNo. ofOrder

6. ZOO

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM

ORDER SHEET

Arb. A.

No. 7 of l£8c 2000

-I!.|& ,Col -.

`.. ` .r ........... petitioner/Appellant

Versus

State o£ Sikkim

Respondent

Office Note as toaction (if any)taken on Order

Order with Signature

Tdr i_endth len lil .6,Ze5oas#6.4giv

Present : cMr. T. a. Thapa with Mr. Bhaska3-Raj Pradhan. Advocates for theSppellantr.

cm Lilk,+b.-u\ 1. G. 2dtrbcloy _ JuL .\ 1. G. 2dtrb1C--rgr'

Mr. S. P. Wangdi, Advo6at.e Generawith Mr. Karm`a Thinlay. Asstt.GoAdvocate €for the respondent.

cloy _ JuL .\ 1. G. 2dtrb

L_L.r

Heard. Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents.

The matter be listed for hearingon 25th July. 2000 as prayed for by theappe1|ant.

C .M.A .146 /2000

Heard on the application moved bythe appellant for stay of the judgment andorder passed by the learned District rudge.Special Division whereby the award.pas;ed infavour of the appellant was set aside. int.eralia. on the ground that the agreement forreferring the rontter between the part.ies wasagainst the provisions of sub-sections (1).(2) and (3) of section 56 of the Trade andMerchandise Marks Act.1958.

One of the prayers made in thestay application is that the respondent mayrestrained from usin77 t.radei„ma`rk9

in relatiz}giv t.o the lotteries until the disposof the Appeel.

After hearing learned Counsel for theparties. we do not consider it to be a fitcase where we should stay the operation ofthe impugned order dated 29t.h April. 2000 pasby the learned District Judge. §peEial. DivisiGangtok and restrain the respondents fran . .using the 77 trca ,ma]=}cfiilrL¢-ai£^ti®n`t to.-:,1'±slotteries. If any order of stay as prayedfor by the .appellant is granted. .and in casethe appeal is dismissed. ttre State will loseit.a revenue only on account of the order ofthe Court. Hc*Jever. we permit. the.appellantto participate in relation to the tender whicif invited, in respect of 77 trade marks inrelation to the lotteries to participate.withcnt prejudice to the rights and contentioof the parties.

SerialNo. ofOrder with SigmtureOrderoHral.e§hp.w¥tanhg#:KAdi=ainay.jL8att. GovC. Aa`rocace for there3pendent .----I-Heard arguments 1n part.The leaned Counsel for theappellant requeete for a date to prepare thecase. With the con8enc of the leanedCounsel for the parties. t.he matter lsadjo`Lmed for hearing to 31-7-2000.'The matter be l18ted on the top ofthe list, .7.ZOOpresent i #:; giaEfia:?aE3vw±:!e¥:o:h:::ar.appellant5Mr. S.oP. Wangdi. Advocate Generalwith Mr. Karma Thinlay. d^`sstt.GovtAdvocate for the respondent.Heard arguments. rudgment reservedpr ,a-( R. myal )Chief Justice31.7 .200031.7 .2000.

5.31 .7.ZOO

Office Note a8 totaackt;:no(njf6:£!r

N®. ofOrder

6, 7.9.20

at/

Arb.2\."o.1/2000

Order with Sjgmture.

0 Present 3 llr. I. a. Thape with Hr. BhaghaRaj Praahan. Advocateg for theappellant.

»r. S. P. Wangdi. advocateGeneral with Hr. Karma Thlnlay.Asstt.Co`rt.Advocate for therespondent.

The respondent has moved C!4h No.247/2000 to the effect that the State Gorement has decided t,hat they will not proceedwith the Sale of lott,ery t,1cket,a under the77 disputed lottery narneg and they under-take to abide by the decision. A prayerhas been made for paselng necessary orders.The learned Advocate General submlt8 thatln vlet`r of the declslon of the Government.the Government does not press the applica-tion £1led under Section 34 of the Arbitratand Conciliation Act.1996.

Accordingly. theappeal is allctwedthe lqugned Judgment andorder of thelearned trial Judge is setaside and theapplication under Section34 of the Arbitratlon and Concillatlon Act.1996 1s digmLss&a a®e,'pz:€8sed.

Office Note as totaackt:&no(njf6:g!r