Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Jain v. Taffy Appliances Private Limited

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2023MFA/2278/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Miscellaneous First Appeal dismissed. The court held the appeal against the refusal of an ex parte temporary injunction is maintainable. It directed the trial court to dispose of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 applications after hearing the defendants by a specific deadline, extending its own interim restraint order.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to dispose of applications under CPC Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 after hearing defendants; interim order extended.

Dilip Kumar Jain Vs Taffy Appliances Private Limited — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2278 OF 2023 (IPR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DILIP KUMAR JAIN ALIAS DILIP KUMAR RANAWAT AN INDIAN, HINDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LATE SRI MAGRAJ RANAWAT GALA NO 7, TOPAZ INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SATIVALI ROAD WALIV VILLAGE VASAI (E) PALHAR-401208

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. SIVARAMAN VAIDYANATHAN.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

TAFFY APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED AN INDIAN COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 CIN: U29300MH2000PTC124261 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR RATAN SAKARIA, GALA NO 5 SAHNTI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CHINCHOTI KAMAN ROAD VILLAGE-SAPADA VASI (EAST) PALHAR-401208.

¶14

SRI PRAKASH ELECTRICAL AND SPARES CONSTITUTION NOT KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER NO 130/10, B V K IYENGAR ROAD

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶17

(NEXT TO USHA TRADING CO.) BENALURU 560053.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. DEEPAKAR LIVINGSTON AND FREUD RICHARDSON .,ADVOCATES FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DATED: 05.06.2023)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.2 AND 3 IN OS.NO.2211/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, CCH-10, BENGALURU, ISSUING EMERGENT NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order dated 31.3.2023 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S.No.2211/2023 whereby the Trial Court has refused to grant an order of exparte temporary injunction to the plaintiff.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶26

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶27

referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

¶28

The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction before the Trial Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

WHEREFORE the Plaintiff most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree in terms of and by granting:

¶30

(a) An order and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and their dealers, agents, servants, employees, legal heirs, successors, assignees, representatives, associates, and anybody claiming through or under them, jointly and severally, from passing off the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation in and to the trademarks MI SUMEET and DUJANA by using the identical and deceptively similar trademarks SUMEET and/or DUJANA and/or any other identical and/or deceptively/confusingly similar trademark in relation to the goods for which the Plaintiff's trademarks MI SUMEET and DUJANA is used namely mixer grinders or any other allied and cognate goods; and

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶33

(b) An order and decree of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and their dealers, agents, servants, employees, legal heirs, successors, assignees, representatives, associates, and anybody claiming through or under them, jointly and severally, from Infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark Nos. 1892486 and 5358408 both in class 07 for the marks MI SUMEET and DUJANA respectively by using the identical and deceptively similar trademarks SUMEET and/or DUJANA and/or any other identical and/or deceptively/confusingly similar trademark relation to the goods for which the Plaintiff's trademarks stand registered namely mixer grinders or any other allied and cognate goods; and

¶34

(c) An order and decree of mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to surrender to the Plaintiff on oath for destruction all packaging materials, products, pouches, labels, cartons, boxes, containers, dies, printing blocks, stationery, invoices, drawings, engravings, brochures, product literature, seals, sales promotional material or other documents or material, whether in physical form or digital/electronic form bearing the identical and deceptively similar trademarks SUMEET and/or DUJANA or any other identical and/or deceptively/confusingly similar trademark; and

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶36

(d) An order and decree directing the Defendants to render a true and faithful account of the complete sales turnover generated by the Defendants from the sales of products under the offending and infringing marks SUMEET and/or DUJANA, and the Defendants be further directed to pay the complete sales turnover to the Plaintiff; and

¶37

(e) An order and decree directing the Defendants to pay the costs of this suit, and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such further order(s) and grant such other relief(s) to the Plaintiff as it may deem fit and proper under the circumstances;

¶38

All in the interests of justice and equity.

¶39

Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction. The plaintiff had also sought for an order of exparte temporary injunction. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 31.3.2023 has issued suit summons to the defendants returnable by 20.4.2023 and has refused to grant an order of temporary injunction.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶42

Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.

¶43

This Court by order dated 19.4.2023 has passed the following order:

¶44

“Heard.

¶45

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the appeal and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court refusing grant of temporary injunction is an unreasoned, cryptic and laconic order passed without application of mind and no proper or cogent reasons are assigned as to why the appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to an ad-interim exparte order of temporary injunction. It is also submitted that though the Trial Court directed issuance of suit summons and notice returnable by 20.04.2023, the respondentsdefendants have not been served with notice of the suit so far.

¶46

The said submission is placed on record.

¶47

Issue emergent notice to the respondents returnable by 05.06.2023.

¶48

In the meanwhile, the respondents and any persons claiming through or under them are

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶50

restrained from using the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “MI SUMEET and DUJANA” for the purpose of marketing or selling their products, goods etc., till the next date of hearing.

¶51

Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to seek modification/vacation of this order.”

¶52

After service of notice, the respondents have

¶53

appeared through their counsel before this Court.

¶54

The learned counsel for the respondentsdefendants has contended that the suit itself is not maintainable and he further contended that this appeal is also not maintainable against refusal of granting an order of exparte temporary injunction by the Trial Court.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶56

parties.

¶57

9. Since both the parties have appeared before

¶58

this Court through their respective counsel and this appeal is filed against refusal of granting an order of exparte

¶59

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶60

temporary injunction, under the circumstances and in the interest of justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in accordance with law.

¶61

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

¶62

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed in O.S.No.2211/2023 in accordance with law on or before 23.6.2023 after hearing the defendants.

¶63

The defendants are directed to file their objections on or before 15.6.2023.

¶64

Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.6.2023.

¶65

Interim order granted by this Court on 19.4.2023 is extended till 23.6.2023.

¶66

The Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court on 19.4.2023 or in this order.

¶67

NC: 2023:KHC:19009 MFA No. 2278 of 2023

¶68

¶69

All the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶70

In view of disposal of appeal, all pending I.As., if

¶71

any, are dismissed accordingly.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

DM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Dilip Kumar Jain v. Taffy Appliances Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Jain v. Taffy Appliances Private Limited

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

Muniyappa Vs Muniyappa

Sri Mansukh Lal Khicha Vs the Corporation of City of Bangalore

Sri N Mohan S/O Late v. Nagappa Vs the Secretary Mudaliar Seva Sangha

R Krishna Murthy Vs Sri Doddanarayana Reddy

Kotebagilu Karibasappa Vs Smt. Mallamma

Sri S Venugopal Vs Smt Shakunthala