Disposed

M/S. Shree Narayana Metallurgical v. M/S.Sri Narayana Engineering Industries

Kerala HC5 Feb 2009FAO/45/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a first appeal against an ex parte临时 injunction order restraining the appellants from selling products under the name Shree Narayana. The Court held that challenging ex parte injunctions directly in appeal denies fair hearing. Instead, it directed the District Judge to expedite the hearing under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC upon an application to vary the order.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Judge to advance hearing under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC upon application to vary the injunction within 10 days.

M/S. Shree Narayana Metallurgical Vs M/S.Sri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

FAO.No. 45 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.180 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.1 OF 2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD)

¶7

APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2:

¶8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. M/S. SHREE NARAYANA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES, 7/258 A, SHREE NARAYANA NIVAS, MANJAKKAD (POST), SHORANUR 679 121, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.M.MOOTHEDATH, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.P.MOOTHEDATH.

¶10

2. P.M.MOOTHEDATH, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.P.MOOTHEDATH, MANAGING PARTER, M/S. SHREE NARAYANA METTALURGICAL INDUSTRIES, MANJAKKAD P.O., SHORANUR, RESIDING AT HRIDAYA, ANSELES RIVERDALE, EROOR ROAD, COCHIN – 682 306.

¶11

BY ADV. MR.TOM K.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 3 & 4:

¶13

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. M/S. SRI NARAYANA ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (PVT.)LTD., KULAPPULLY POST, SHORANUR – 2 IN OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.M.U.NALINI, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT “SREENARAYANA PRABHALAYAM', KULAPPULLY POST, SHORANUR 2 IN OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

Kss

..2/-

...2.....

F.A.O.NO.45/2009

2. SUHITA MOHAN SINGH, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.P.M.MOOTHEDATH, PARTNER, M/S.SHREE NARAYANA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES, MANJAKKAD P.O., SHORANUR, RESIDING AT 'HRIDAYA', ANSELES RIVERDALE, EROOR ROAD, COCHIN – 682 306.

¶20

3. ANILKUMAR ALLAM, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.VENKATRAM IYER, PARTNER, M/S.SHREE NARAYANA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES, MANJAKKAD P.O., SHORANUR RESIDING AT SHORANUR 679 121, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶21

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

Kss

¶23

M.N.KRISHNAN, J

¶24

=====================

¶25

FAO No.45 OF 2009 =====================

¶26

Dated this the 5th day of February 2009 JUDGMENT

¶27

This FAO is preferred against the ex parte order of temporary injunction passed by the District Court, Palakkad in I.A.No.180 of 2009 in O.S.No.1 of 2009. By the said order the appellants before me is restrained

¶28

from selling, exhibiting or putting in the market their products with the name 'Shree Narayana' with the trade mark 'stag' and with the picture of a 'stag head', etc. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that this order had worked out very great injustice to his client, the court ought not have passed an ex parte order without hearing him. Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a procedure when an order of injunction is passed to move the court for varying or setting aside the order passed by the court and generally if ex parte order of injunctions are allowed to be challenged in appeal there will not be a fair amount of hearing and so I feel this is a fit case where direction can be given to the District Judge, Palakkad to advance the hearing date of the case the moment the appellant files an application for varying or setting aside the order under

¶29

FAO 45/2009 -:2:-

¶30

Order XXXIX Rule 4 C.P.C. and after giving notice to the other side, dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, taking the urgency raised by the party and if possible, within a period of 10 days from today.

¶31

FAO is disposed of accordingly.

¶32

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶33

Cdp/-

M/S. Shree Narayana Metallurgical v. M/S.Sri Narayana Engineering Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Shree Narayana Metallurgical v. M/S.Sri Narayana Engineering Industries

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

A.P.Sreedhari Siva Raj Vs a.P.Mydhili

Sini (Minor) Rep. by Shaji Kumar Vs R. Prabhulla Chandra Raj & Others

Elizabeth Vs Poulose.Vp & Others

Valsan Vs Krishnan

T.Koya Vs P.Ahammed Koya and Others

U.v.Prakashan Vs H.Abdul Salam and Others