Allowed

Shri Shivkumar Shanarao Thakur and Anr. v. Shri Bajranglal Makhanlal Agrawal

Bombay HC13 Jan 2023WP/9893/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil appeal set aside the Trial Court's order rejecting an application to place re-validation certificates of four trademarks on record. The High Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to admit the documents as public records without requiring further witness examination.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.01.2020 quashed; Exhibit-E (re-validation certificates) directed to be taken on record; parties' contentions on validity kept open.

Shri Shivkumar Shanarao Thakur and Anr. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

19.WP.9893.22.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9893 OF 2022

¶6

Shivkumar Shanarao Thakuar and Ors... Petitioners
 Versus

¶7

Bajranglal Makhanlal Agrawal..Respondent

¶8

Mr. Vineet B. Naik, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Tejesh Dande, Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, Krupanshu Nandue and Ms. Seema Patil i/by Tejesh Dande & Associates for Petitioners

¶9

Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar for Respondent

¶10

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:JANUARY 13, 2023.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Heard Mr. Naik, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.
Kanetkar, learned Advocate for Respondent. Petitioners are Plaintiffs
in the Suit.

¶13

2. Perused the impugned order dated 16.01.2020 passed below
Exhibit-252 in Civil Suit No. 9 of 2011. Admittedly, the Suit
proceeding pending before the Trial Court is at the stage of final
arguments.

¶14

3. Considering the averments made in the plaint in paragraph No.3
thereof, an application was moved by the Petitioner seeking to place
on record a fresh re-validation of the registration of 4 trademarks of
the Petitioners and for exhibiting the same. The fresh re-validation
Certificate dated 16.10.2018 is placed at Exhibit-E page Nos. 123 to
130 of the Petition and the re-validation has been granted w.e.f.
16.03.2019 to 16.03.2029 in respect of the same four trademarks as

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

19.WP.9893.22.doc

¶17

mentioned in the plaint.

¶18

4. Considering that re-validation was in respect of the same four trademarks, the Application ought to have been allowed. However, the Trial Court has rejected the Application by assigning the reason of the date of the Application and delay in filing the same.

¶19

5. Mr. Naik would submit that delay is not applicable at all as the
order dated 22.03.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
3374 of 2017 in fact stayed the hearing of the suit proceedings from
22.03.2017 to 02.05.2019.

¶20

6. This order dated 22.03.2022 was not brought to the notice of the
Trial Court. That apart, Mr. Naik submitted that though Petitioners
had taken out Application for recall of the witness to submit the above
documents subsequently, on instructions he now states that Petitioners
shall not examine any witness regarding the same. He prays for the
said documents to be taken on record and setting aside the impugned
order.

¶21

7. Mr. Kanetkar submitted that Respondent has not filed reply,
however, in his usual fairness he submits that if the Petitioners do not
wish to recall and re-examine any witness, then the Respondents
would not have any objection. Respondents objection is for recall and
re-examination of the Petitioner’s witness. He also submitted that
Respondents have reservations for marking the said documents as
Exhibits.

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

19.WP.9893.22.doc

¶24

8. There cannot be any objection by the Respondents for placing 4
documents on record or for exhibiting the same as they are public
documents. Considering the pendency of the suit, the registration of
the subject trademarks has been revalidated. The objection of
Respondents is therefore not sustainable and stands rejected. In view
of the above, I find that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
The order dated 16.01.2020 passed below Exhibit-252 stands quashed
and set aside. Needless to state that Exhibit-252 stands allowed and
Exhibit-E to the Petition (Page Nos. 123 to 130) is directed to be taken
on record and exhibited as prayed for under Exhibit-252 by the
Petitioners. Petitioners shall not recall and re-examine their witness
for the above documents. All contentions of the parties regarding the
above documents regarding their validity are expressly kept open for
submissions / arguments before the Trial Court at the time of final
hearing.

¶25

9. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶26

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶27

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2023.01.13 KILAJE 20:13:52 +0530

¶28

3 of 3

Shri Shivkumar Shanarao Thakur and Anr. v. Shri Bajranglal Makhanlal Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Shivkumar Shanarao Thakur and Anr. v. Shri Bajranglal Makhanlal Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattu Raghu Patil (Decd.) by Heirs Vs Anand Narsinh @ Balambhatt Joshi and Anr.

Mervyn Joseph Cardoz Decd Thru Lhr and Ors. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Ganpat Bhika Bhor Vs Smt.S.S. Lilke and Ors.

Jay Mahadaba Textile Industries through Its Proprietor Santosh Koli Alias Bal Maharaj Vs Sara Chemicals

Satyanarayan Bhavarlal Jakhotiya Vs Kisan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Thr Its Direct-Jayeshbhai Rameshbhai Patel

Smt. Gangubai Laxman Bhoir (Decd) through Lrs. Vs Nijamuddin Badriddom Jalal (Decd) through Lrs. and Ors.