Article 133 1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree

or final order in a civil proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the
High Court certifies under article 134A—
 
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance;
and
 
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided
by the Supreme Court.
 
(2) Notwithstanding anything in article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme
Court under clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been
wrongly decided.
 
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by
law otherwise provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or
final order of one Judge of a High Court.

Article 136 Special Leave Petitions in India (SLP) holds a prime place in the Judiciary of India,
and has been provided as a "residual power" in the hands of Supreme Court of India to be
exercised only in cases when any substantial question of law is involved, or gross injustice has
been done. It provides the aggrieved party a special permission to be heard in Apex
court in appeal against any judgment or order of any Court/tribunal in the territory of India (except
military tribunal and court martial) [1]
The Constitution of India under Article 136 vests the Supreme Court of India, the apex court of
the country, with a special power to grant special leave, to appeal against any judgment or order
or decree in any matter or cause, passed or made by any Court/tribunal in the territory of India. It
is to be used in case any substantial constitutional question of law is involved, or gross injustice
has been done.
It is discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court of India and the court may in its discretion
refuse to grant leave to appeal. The aggrieved party cannot claim special leave to appeal under
Article 136 as a right, but it is privilege vested in the Supreme Court of India to grant leave to
appeal or not
SLP can be filed against any judgment or decree or order of any High Court /tribunal in the
territory of India; or, SLP can be filed in case the High court refuses to grant the certificate of
fitness for appeal to Supreme Court of India.
SLP can be filed against any judgment of High Court within 90 days from the date of judgement;
or SLP can be filed within 60 days against the order of the High Court refusing to grant the
certificate of fitness for appeal to Supreme Court.
Any aggrieved party can file SLP against the judgment or order of refusal of grant of certificate.

SLP(c) 004307 of 2008

This petition is required to state all the facts that are necessary to enable the court to determine
whether SLP ought to be granted or not. It is required to be signed by Advocate on record. The
petition should also contain statement that the petitioner has not filed any other petition in the
High court. It should be accompanied by a certified copy of judgement appealed against and an
affidavit by the petitioner verifying the same and should also be accompanied by all the
documents that formed part of pleading in Lower court.
Section 135 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999
135. Relief in suits for infringement or for passing off.—
(1) The relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement or for passing off
referred to in section 134 includes injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the court
thinks fit) and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits,
together with or without any order for the delivery-up of the infringing labels and marks
for destruction or erasure.
(2) The order of injunction under sub-section (1) may include an ex parte injunction or
any interlocutory order for any of the following matters, namely:—
(a) for discovery of documents;
(b) preserving of infringing goods, documents or other evidence which are related to the
subject-matter of the suit;
(c) restraining the defendant from disposing of or dealing with his assets in a manner
which may adversely affect plaintiff’s ability to recover damages, costs or other
pecuniary remedies which may be finally awarded to the plaintiff.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the court shall not grant relief
by way of damages (other than nominal damages) or on account of profits in any case—
(a) where in a suit for infringement of a trade mark, the infringement complained of is in
relation to a certification trade mark or collective mark; or
(b) where in a suit for infringement the defendant satisfies the court—
(i) that at the time he commenced to use the trade mark complained of in the suit, he was
unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the trade mark of the plaintiff
was on the register or that the plaintiff was a registered user using by way of permitted
use; and
(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff’s right in the
trade mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark in relation to goods or services in
respect of which it was registered; or
(c) where in a suit for passing off, the defendant satisfies the court—
(i) that at the time he commenced to use the trade mark complained of in the suit he was
unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the trade mark of the plaintiff
was in use; and
(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff’s trade mark he
forthwith ceased to use the trade mark complained of.
Section 34 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999
34. Saving for vested rights.—Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a
registered user of registered trade mark to interfere with or restrain the use by any person
of a trade mark identical with or nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services in
relation to which that person or a predecessor in title of his has continuously used that
trade mark from a date prior—
(a) to the use of the first-mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods or services be
the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or
(b) to the date of registration of the first-mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods
or services in the name of the proprietor of a predecessor in title of his; whichever is the
earlier, and the Registrar shall not refuse (on such use being proved), to register the
second mentioned trade mark by reason only of the registration of the first mentioned
trade mark.