Disposed

The Indian Express Ltd. v. Vijay Budhia of Raipur Indian Inhabitant and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014CHS/403/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in Suit No. 2028 of 2011, disposed of a chamber summons application by the plaintiff to amend and recast issues framed on October 15, 2013. The court granted the prayers to add new issues, correct existing ones, and delete issue seven, renumbering the remaining issues and appending an annexure with the final set.

What did the court decide?

Granted prayer clauses (a), (b), and (c) for amendment and recasting of issues; deleted issue No. 7; renumbered issues 1 through 11; matter listed for marking of documents.

The Indian Express Ltd. Vs Vijay Budhia of Raipur… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

54-S20282011.DOC

¶2

Ars

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 2028 of 2011

¶5

The Indian Express Ltd.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Vijay Budhia of Raipur & Ors.…Defendants
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.403 OF 2014
The Indian Express Ltd.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Vijay Budhia of Raipur & Ors.…Defendants

¶6

Mr. Amol Joshi, i/b Ms. Poorvi Kamani, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr. Abhijeet Singh Chauhan, for Defendants

¶7

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:10th June 2014

¶8

PC:-

¶9

1.This, in my view, is a Chamber Summons that was entirely
unnecessary. It is an application by the Plaintiff for amendment of
issues framed on 15th October 2013. Three additional issues are
sought to be raised and one existing issue is sought to be recast.

¶10

2.Having heard the learned Advocate for the appearing parties,
I am satisfied that the additional issues as placed by Mr. Joshi,

¶11

1 of 4

¶12

54-S20282011.DOC

¶13

learned Advocate for the Plaintiff, must in fact be framed. Further it
is not in dispute that issue No.6 as framed on 15th October 2013
requires to be corrected as set out in prayer (b) of the Chamber
Summons.

¶14

3.The third prayer in the Chamber Summons is for deletion of
issue no.7. That issue was cast on the footing that an issue arose
whether the 1st Defendant was entitled to refund Rs.1.86 Crores
with interest. The 1st Defendant has filed no counter claim on the
basis of which alone such an issue could have been struck.

¶15

4.In view thereof there will be an order in terms of prayer
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Chamber Summons. The issues set
out at prayer clauses (a)(1), (a)(2) and (a)(3) will now be re-
numbered as issues No.1,2 and 3. Issues No. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and
(v) as cast on 15th October 2013 shall now be renumbered as issues
nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Issue No. (vi) cast on 15th October 2013 shall
be renumbered as issue No. 9 and shall be recast in accordance with
prayer clause (b) of the Chamber Summons. Issue no. (vii) framed
on 15th October 2013 shall be deleted. Issue Nos. (viii) and (ix) in
the order dated 15th October shall now be numbered as issue Nos.
10 and 11. A corrected and final copy of the issues is appended as
ANNEXURE 1 to this order.

¶16

5. Chamber summons is disposed of in these terms.

¶17

6.List the matter on 26th June for marking of the Plaintiffs’
documents.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶19

2 of 4

¶20

54-S20282011.DOC

¶21

Annexure-1: Amended and Recast Issues (10th June 2014)

¶22

1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants have infringed the Plaintiffs’ registered trade marks “JANSATTA”?

¶23

2.Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants
were passing off the Plaintiffs’ registered trade
mark “JANSATTA” and “flame of hope logo” with
the words “INDIAN EXPRESS GROUP” and/or
misusing the names of the Plaintiffs and/or its
predecessor in interest and/or of Mr.Om Thanvi,
Editor and Mr.Viveck Goenka, the Chairman of the
Board of the Plaintiffs?

¶24

3.Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to damages and
compensation for infringement and/or passing off
their trade marks and copyright by the
Defendants, including in print media and online? If
yes, what amount?

¶25

4. Whether the Plaintiff proves that Defendant No.1 has committed any breach of franchisee agreement dated 27th August 2002?

¶26

5.Whether the Plaintiff proves that it is entitled to
claim damages for the breach of franchisee
agreement dated 27th August 2002 from
Defendant No.1?

¶27

6.Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to
receive dues of Rs.13,00,000/- against the
franchisee agreement dated 22nd August 2002
along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of
filing of Suit and also thereafter?

¶28

7. Whether the Defendants prove that Suit as filed

¶29

3 of 4

¶30

54-S20282011.DOC

¶31

by the Plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder of necessary
parties i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3?

¶32

8. Whether the Plaintiff proves that he is entitled to claim royalty for any breach of intellectual property of the Plaintiff from Defendant No.1?

¶33

9.Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that the
Defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement
for purchase of the newspaper “Jansatta” with the
Plaintiffs on 4th February 2002 and in lieu thereof
had paid to the Plaintiffs consideration of almost
Rs.2 Crores?

¶34

10. What reliefs?

¶35

11. What order?

¶36

4 of 4

The Indian Express Ltd. v. Vijay Budhia of Raipur Indian Inhabitant and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Express Ltd. v. Vijay Budhia of Raipur Indian Inhabitant and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahakosh Holdings Pvt.Ltd Vs Pebble Securities Ltd.and Ors.

Control Print (I) Ltd. Vs Casetan D'Souza and Anr.

The Industrial Finance Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs Aries Agrovate Industriesltd and Ors.

First Impression Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs Franklin Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.

M/S.Nego Holdings Ltd., Vs Natonal Stock Exchange of India

Camphor and Allied Products Ltd. Vs Dinesh Kumar and Bros. and Anr.