Dismissed

Ms Champa Prema Tandel v. Great Galleon Ventures Limited & Anr.

Delhi HC30 Jan 2024FAO(OS) (COMM)/237/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a Single Judge's direction not to upload an interim order on the court website for two weeks to prevent the removal of counterfeit goods during a search operation. The Court held the direction was within its inherent powers under the CPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. Costs of ₹50,000/- were awarded to the respondent.

Ms Champa Prema Tandel Vs Great Galleon Ventures Limited… — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

FAO(OS) (COMM) 237/2023 MS CHAMPA PREMA TANDEL ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Bhavesh Parmar, Ms. Reshma Nair, Mr. Anandh K., Ms. Shruti Iyer & Ms. Nishita Jagetia, Advs.

¶4

Versus

¶5

GREAT GALLEON VENTURES LIMITED & ANR... Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Wadhwa & Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advs. for R-1.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU O R D E R % 30.01.2024

¶8

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 25.05.2023 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’ ) passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No.10177/2023 in CS(COMM) No.343/2023 captioned Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. v. Champa Prema Tandel Sole Proprietor of Dharmesh Distillery & Anr.

¶9

In terms of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had appointed the Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the appellant and to conduct the search and seizure of counterfeit foods. The impugned order was passed in the context of the allegations that the appellant was engaged in passing off and selling counterfeit goods. The learned Single Judge examined the images of the products allegedly dealt with by the appellant and prima facie found the same were merited.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is neither aggrieved by the appointment of the Local Commissioner nor the ad interim injunction order passed by the learned

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:32:36

¶13

Single Judge. He has confined the challenge in the present appeal to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge not to upload the impugned order for a period of two weeks. He submits that no such direction could be passed. He also contends that there is no Rule, which enables the Court to issue any such direction to the Registry. He referred to Section 33 and Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter ‘the CPC’ ) and submitted that a judgment is required to be pronounced in open court. He stated that the same would also require that the judgement be uploaded on the website of the court.

¶14

We find no merit in the aforesaid contentions. It is apparent from the above that the learned Single Judge had issued the direction not to upload the impugned order on the website of this Court for a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the same to ensure an element of surprise. This was to prevent the appellant from removing the counterfeit goods prior to the execution of the commission.

¶15

We are also unable to accept that the powers of the Court to grant interim relief or to issue appropriate directions are curtailed in any manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The orders are directed to be uploaded on the website of the Court in terms of the circular issued by the Court.

¶16

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the directions fall foul of the provisions of the CPC is bereft of any merit. There is no provision under the CPC which requires the orders to be uploaded on the website of the Courts. The CPC also does not curtail the power of the court to issue appropriate directions to the registry of the court. There is no cavil that the impugned order was pronounced in the

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:32:36

¶19

Court. It was duly signed and an authenticated copy of the same was made available to the respondent. The appellant was also not precluded from applying for a certified copy of the impugned order. 7. The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants are unmerited and insubstantial. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at ₹50,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the respondent within a period of two weeks from date.

¶20

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

¶21

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J

¶22

JANUARY 30, 2024 ‘gsr’ Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶23

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 14:32:36

Ms Champa Prema Tandel v. Great Galleon Ventures Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Champa Prema Tandel v. Great Galleon Ventures Limited & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Bank Ltd. Vs Sahib

Ganesh Chandra Surya Team Film Pvt. Ltd. Vs Anjali Singh & Ors. & Ors.

Krishiv Poly Products LLP Vs M/S Mdp Enterprises & Ors.

Kuldeep Singh and Ors. Vs Muncipal Corporation Delhi and Ors.

M/S Earthcon Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Mahamaya Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd.

Tarvinder Khanna Vs Rakesh Midha and Anr.