Taurus Powertronics Private Limited Vs M.K Srinivasan — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

Taurus Powertronics Private Limited Vs M.K Srinivasan — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with clarifications agreed by both sides: (i) the name 'TAURUS' cannot be used by the appellants as expressly directed by the learned Commercial Court; (ii) all rights and contentions of the parties are left open and the Arbitral Tribunal will adjudicate the disputes uninfluenced by any observations in the impugned order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal against the Commercial Court's order confirming the Section 9 A&C Act interim injunction restraining use of the 'TAURUS' mark called for any modification or clarification, including whether the impugned order precluded the appellants from using their corporate names.

Court's answer

Disposing of the appeal, the Court clarified that the name 'TAURUS' cannot be used by the appellants, as expressly directed by the learned Commercial Court.

Ratio / Principle

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open, and the Arbitral Tribunal will adjudicate the disputes between the parties uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Divisional Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and C M Joshi, J; oral judgment per the Chief Justice; NC: 2025:KHC:31271-DB) — COMAP No. 409 of 2025, filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 and described in the judgment as an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order dated 16.06.2025 of the LXXXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court CCH-89), Bengaluru in Com.A.A.No.168/2024 confirming ad-interim orders dated 08.01.2025 allowing I.A. Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 9 A&C Act r/w Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 and Section 151 CPC, whereby the appellants stood restrained by temporary injunction from infringing, passing off, misappropriating or adopting/using the TAURUS trademark or deceptively similar marks till disposal of the main case, in the context of a settlement agreement dated 28.12.2021 under which trademarks had been assigned to the respondents. On counsel's joint submission, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal clarifying that the name 'TAURUS' cannot be used by the appellants as expressly directed by the Commercial Court, leaving all rights and contentions open and directing that the Arbitral Tribunal adjudicate the disputes uninfluenced by observations in the impugned order; pending applications stood disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31271-DB COMAP No. 409 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 409 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

TAURUS POWERTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 26, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 1^ST BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. M N RAVINARAYAN.

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

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

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

MRS. GAYATHRI RAVINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OLD, W/O MR. M N RAVINARAYAN, R/AT L-404, BRIGADE GATEWAYS,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31271-DB COMAP No. 409 of 2025

HC-KAR

DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 055.

…APPELLANTS

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

AND:

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

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.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, AG/SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI S ISMAIL ZABIULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & 2)

THIS COMAP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT 2015 , PRAYING TO ADMIT AND ALLOW THE PRESENT APPEAL AND, BY SO DOING, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER (ANNEXURE A) DATED 16.06.2025 AS PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT CCH-89) AT BENGALURU IN THE COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION BEARING COM.A.A.168/2024.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE AND

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31271-DB COMAP No. 409 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU,CHIEF JUSTICE)

The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] impugning an order dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in Com.A.A.No.168/2024. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed the said petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act seeking certain interim measures of protection in context of the settlement agreement arrived at between the parties on 28.12.2021.

In terms of the said settlement agreement, the

appellants had assigned certain trademarks to the respondents which form the subject matter of disputes between the parties.

In the impugned order, the learned Commercial Court had confirmed the ad-interim orders passed on

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:31271-DB COMAP No. 409 of 2025

HC-KAR

08.01.2025. The operative portion of the same reads as under:

"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.

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."

After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellants submits that a) there is no grievance with the interim order at this stage, subject to it being clarified that the impugned order does not preclude the appellants from using their corporate names; and b) all rights and contentions of the parties be kept open.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents has no objection to the said suggestion.

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31271-DB COMAP No. 409 of 2025

HC-KAR

In view of the above, we dispose of the present

appeal by clarifying that the name 'TAURUS' cannot be used by the appellants as expressly directed by the learned Commercial Court. We also clarify that all rights and contentions of the parties are left open and the Arbitral Tribunal will adjudicate the disputes between the parties uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order.

Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

NR/-

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15