Disposed

M/S Venkis Mineral Water Products v. M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (Kmf)

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2024WP/6583/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the trial court's refusal to extend an interim temporary injunction in a trademark-related suit after the plaintiff's counsel missed a hearing citing medical emergency. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the trial court to hear the interlocutory applications on merits on 11.03.2024 without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; trial court directed to hear interim applications on merits on 11.03.2024; all contentions kept open.

M/S Venkis Mineral Water Products Vs M/S Karnataka… — Intellectual Property | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:8870 WP No. 6583 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6583 OF 2024 (IPR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

M/S. VENKIS MINERAL WATER PRODUCTS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. SATYA KISHORE HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT R. G. ROAD, KARATIGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, NEAR NATIONAL SCHOOL, KARNATAKA - 583 229. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. JADESHIVAYOGI CHILAKARAYA C/O SRI. BASAVANAGOUDA CHILAKARAYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NANDINI WATER PLANT, WARD NO. 20, KARTAGI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT, NEAR NATIONAL SCHOOL, KARNATAKA - 583 229. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

M/S. KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD. (KMF) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT KMF COMPLEX, P. B. NO. 2915, D. R. COLLEGE POST,

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC:8870 WP No. 6583 of 2024

¶13

DR. M. H. MARIGOWDA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.SUDHEENDRA BHOVI K., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT DATED 14.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) PASSED BY THE HONBLE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, REFUSING TO EXTEND THE INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION GRANTED ON 20.01.2024, ON IA NO. 1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 491/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU AND EXTEND THE INTERIM ORDERS GRANTED BY ITS ORDER DATED 20.01.2024 ON IA NO. 1 AND 2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 READ WITH 151 OF CPC IN OS NO. 491/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 AND 2 FILED IN OS NO. 491/2024, ON MERITS BY THE TRIAL COURT I.E. HONBLE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU ETC.

¶17

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard Sri Sharath S Gogi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.S.Naganand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶20

This writ petition is filed against the order dated 14.02.2024 in O.S.No.491/2024. In a suit filed by the present

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:8870 WP No. 6583 of 2024

¶23

petitioner, there was an exparte order against the respondent/defendant. The exparte order was passed till filing of objections by the respondent/defendant. The statement of objection was filed on the date of appearance and the exparte interim order was extended. When the case was called on 14.02.2024, after hearing both the parties, the Court felt there is a need to extend the interim order till the next date.

¶24

On the next date, the arguing counsel for the plaintiff was not present, but there was representation on his behalf from the chamber of the counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant argued the matter opposing extension of interim order. The junior counsel filed a memo stating that there is medical emergency, as such the arguing counsel could not be present and sought adjournment for extension. The extension was refused.

¶26

Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and additional documents are filed and the application is heard on merits in part and the case is now posted on 20.03.2024 for further hearing on interlocutory application.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:8870 WP No. 6583 of 2024

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that on account of medical emergency, the arguing counsel could not represent the plaintiff on 14.02.2024 and the Trial Court refused to extend the exparte interim order, without hearing the plaintiff, who sought adjournment on account of medical emergency.

¶30

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant/respondent would contend that the petitioner has misrepresented, while obtaining the exparte order stating that there is a registered trade mark and factual position is that there is no registered trade mark in favour of the plaintiff as such there is justification in not extending the exparte order. It is also his submission that since the petitioner has addressed his argument on merits of the interim application which is yet to be decided on merits, no prejudice is caused and no adverse finding is given against the plaintiff.

¶31

This Court has considered the contentions raised at

¶32

Bar:

¶33

i) Admitted factual position is that there is no order on merits of the interim application and interim application is being heard by the Court, where the

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:8870 WP No. 6583 of 2024

¶35

suit is pending, and now the case is adjourned to 20.03.2024.

¶36

ii) Considering the facts that till 14.02.2024, there was an exparte interim order in favour of the plaintiff, this Court is of the view, that the application be heard on 11.03.2024 on merits and thereafter, appropriate orders be passed on the application.

¶37

iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the plaintiff or the defendant. All contentions kept open.

¶38

iv) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of .

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

M/S Venkis Mineral Water Products v. M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (Kmf)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Venkis Mineral Water Products v. M/S Karnataka Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (Kmf)

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

Madesh N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Andali Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shanthamma Vs Sri N Ramachandra

R Akkaiamma @ Vijayalakshmi Vs Smt Padmamma

Smt Vani Ranganath W/O. Ranganatha Naidu Vs the Karnataka Slum Clearance

Sri Muninarasappa Since Deceased by His Lrs Vs Sri S N Sreerama Raju