This miscellaneous first appeal challenged a trial court order dismissing an interim injunction petition against a rival screening tool. The High Court disposed of the appeal and directed the trial court to decide the underlying suit within six months.
Trial Court directed to dispose of O.S. No. 7837/2019 within six months; parties to cooperate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
MFA No. 2192 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2192 OF 2021(IPR)
BETWEEN:
PROF AMIT KUMAR C JAIN S/O CHHAGANLAL JAIN AGED ABUT 40 YEAR RESIDING AT NO.28, SHANKAR PARK SHANKARAURAM BANGALORE 560004.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. TARUNN SURANA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka
MFA No. 2192 of 2021
OPPOSITE RUIA COLLEGE MATUNGA EAST, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA 400019.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.N.ANANTHANARYANA., ADVOCATE FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 TO R5: IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 07.06.2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 24.02.2021, PASSED ON IA NO.I IN O.S. NO.7837/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-10), DISMISSING THE IA NO.I FILED U/O.39 RULES 1 AND 2 R/W. SEC.151 OF CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.7837/2019 before the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, challenging the order dated 24.2.2021 passed on I.A.No.1 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff.
referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
a. Restrain the Defendant No.1, its representative/s, employee/s, agent/s or any one claiming under it from dealing with or using research work developed by the Plaintiff "Amit Jain’s screening tool" also known as "Amit Jain's triple assessment/Amit Jain's 10 to 20 second screening tool for diabetic foot" in any form or under any name including "10 Seconds Mandakini Diabetic Foot Screening Tool" which is/are deceptively identical/
MFA No. 2192 of 2021
similar to the Plaintiff's original research work and study.
b. Restrain the Defendants from allowing any member of Second Defendant claiming the research work of Plaintiff or any part thereof as his/their own.
c. Direct the Second, Third and Fourth to ensure that the member/s of Defendant No. 2 refrain from dealing or using the Plaintiff's research works on any of components of research of the Plaintiff on diabetic foot surgery including "Amit Jains screening tool" also known as "Amit Jain's triple assessment/Amit Jain's 10 to 20 second screening tool for diabetic foot" in any manner or form.
d. Direct the Defendant No. 1 and No.2 to notify the organizers of conferences including across India and the world where Dr. Sunil Kari or any other representative/s of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have presented "10 Seconds Mandakini Diabetic Foot Screening Tool" or called by any another name/title.
e. Direct the Defendant Nos.2-4 to publish on its website and notify its members, all delegates of DFSICON that "10 Seconds Mandakini Diabetic
MFA No. 2192 of 2021
Foot Screening Tool" or called by any another name/title is not the original research work of the Defendant No. 1 and its representative - Dr. Sunil Kari
f. Direct the Defendant 2- 4 and all its associated members from restraining the use of Amrita classification and Ganga classification of diabetic foot in any conferences in India and across the world and its usage in any form.
g. Direct the Fifth Defendant to conduct an enquiry against the First to Fourth Defendant under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.
h. Direct the defendant No. 5 and 6 to remove the articles published by the Defendants and any other authors as Amrita classification and Ganga classification in any/all journals, books, websites etc. Alternatively, acknowledge original sources, its authors and classification including that of the Plaintiff in the existing publications.
interim order of temporary injunction. On service of suit summons, defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court by impugned order dated 24.2.2021 dismissed I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.
parties.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit
i.e., O.S.No.7837/2019 as expeditiously as possible not
MFA No. 2192 of 2021
later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
Parties are directed to co-operate for the early disposal of the suit.
Registry is directed to return the original records to the trial court forthwith.
In view of disposal of appeal, all pending I.As., if any, are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
DM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the Trial Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously in the interest of justice.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PROF AMIT KUMAR C JAIN
MANDAKINI HOSPITAL
DIABETIC FOOT SOCIETY OF INDIA
DR ARUN BAL
THE EDITOR INDIAN JOURNAL OF PLASTIC SURGERY
MEDI COUNCIL OF INDIA
H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
