Taurus Powertronics Private Limitd Vs M K Srinivasan

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14138-DB COMAP No. 145 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 145 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

TAURUS POWERTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.26 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN.

¶9

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

TAURUS POWERTRONICS SYSTEMS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 REPRESENTED HEREIN THROUGH ITS PARTNER MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN HAVING OFFICE AT 26, 12^TH MAIN ROAD 1^ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶11

MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OLD S/O. MR. M.N. NARASIMHAN RESIDING AT L-404 BRIGADE GATEWAYS, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶12

MRS. GAYATHRI RAVINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OLD W/O. MR. M.N. RAVINARAYAN RESIDING AT L-404

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14138-DB COMAP No. 145 of 2025

¶14

BRIGADE GATEWAYS DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M.K. SRINIVASAN PROPRIETOR OF MKS SYSTEMS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OLD S/O. M.K. SEETHARAM, RESIDING AT NO.89 EAST PARK ROAD, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶19

M. K. SRINIVASAN SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.33, 17^TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 055.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI S. ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)

¶21

THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(b) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, READ WITH SECTION 13 (1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 PRAYING TO ADMIT AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND, BY SO DOING, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE-A) DATED 08.01.2025 AS PASSED BY THE LD.LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH-89) AT BENGALURU IN I.A. NOS.2 TO 4 (THE EX-PARTE APPLICATIONS) OF COM A.A 168/2024 & ETC.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14138-DB COMAP No. 145 of 2025

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶27

It is the order dated 08.01.2025 passed by learned LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Commercial Arbitration Application No.168 of 2024 which is under challenge in this Commercial Appeal.

¶28

The said order reads as under,

¶29

"I.A.No.2 to 4 filed by the Applicant U/Sec.9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 r/w Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Sec.151 of CPC respectively are hereby allowed.

¶30

The respondents No.1 to 4 are hereby restrained by way of temporary injunction from infringing, passing of its products, incorporating or misappropriating or illegal adopting or using directly or indirectly, adopting and or using the applicants trademark TAURUS or any other mark identically or defectively similar there too till disposal of the main case."

¶31

3. The respondents-the applicants in the application under

¶32

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14138-DB COMAP No. 145 of 2025

¶34

interim measure seeking relief in the nature of injunction against the appellants herein to prevent them from using and/or adopting the trademark of the applicants 'TAURUS'. The applicants claim that under this trademark, they sell and deal in the electrical items.

¶35

3.1 It is the case of the appellants that they are the owners of such trademark since 1985. It is the further case that the appellants instituted Commercial Original Suit No.1771 of 2024, in which injunction was granted by the commercial court in their favour by the order dated 26.12.2024.

¶36

3.2 It appears that the parties are the family members engaged in the business of selling and supplying the electrical equipments. The case of the respondents herein for their application under Section 9 was based on the Settlement Agreement and the Assignment Deed, which documents, according to the appellants herein, were got executed from them by force. It is stated that these documents are subject matter of the aforementioned suit.

¶37

Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Vivek S. Reddy appearing for the respondents submitted that the suit was filed subsequent to the filing of Section 9 application and during the pendency thereof. He

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14138-DB COMAP No. 145 of 2025

¶39

sought to defend the impugned order, whereby the appellants were injuncted from using the trademark.

¶40

While the above is the broad outline of the controversy and learned advocates for the parties raised their submissions, the court finds it not necessary to go into the merits of the arguments at this stage for the simple reason that the order impugned was passed on I.A.Nos.2 to 4 filed by the applicants. While the interlocutory applications are allowed by granting the injunction as above, the parent proceedings of Section 9 of the Act of 1996 are kept pending and are not disposed of.

¶41

5.1 The practice of keeping the main proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 pending and passing interim orders therein deserves to be deprecated and such course ought to have avoided by the courts. It leads to not only delay in disposal of the application under Section 9, but also results in multiplicity of proceedings. Even otherwise it is an irregular practice.

¶42

5.2 When the main proceedings are pending and the present is an interim order, the court is not inclined to consider the challenge thereto at this stage.

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14138-DB COMAP No. 145 of 2025

¶44

It was submitted by learned Senior Advocates for the parties that the court below has already heard Section 9 application but the final order was not passed, instead, interim order came to be passed. It is the stand of the respondents herein that Section 9 application was filed as back as in May 2024, whereas the suit was instituted in December 2024. Be that as it may.

¶45

When the parent proceedings under Section 9 are still to be disposed of, the court considers it appropriate to permit both the sides to raise their contentions afresh before the court below.

¶46

Accordingly, the parties are at liberty to canvas all the contentions which are available to them in law. The court below shall permit the parties to raise their arguments and decide the proceedings afresh in accordance with law. It goes without saying that since this order is interim in nature, the findings in this order shall be treated tentative.

¶47

The aforesaid exercise of deciding the commercial application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 afresh shall be concluded within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶48