Disposed

Aneez Adam Koyappathody v. Anshad Nazim

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018FAO/42/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The First Additional Order in a suit for injunction regarding the trade name 'Adaminte Chayakkada' issued directions to the trial court to defer the trial to 12.11.2018, permit amendment of pleadings subject to opportunity given to the respondent, and dismissed pending interlocutory applications.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to trial court to defer trial, permit amendment of pleadings, and dismiss pending interlocutory applications.

Aneez Adam Koyappathody Vs Anshad Nazim — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

FAO.No. 42 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24-08-2017 IN IA 1725/2017 IN OS 14/2017 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-V, ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF :

¶8

ANEEZ ADAM KOYAPPATHODY AGED 34 YEARS, S/O P.MUNEER, KOYAPPATHODY VILLA, KRISHNAN NAIR ROAD, MALIKKADAVU, KOZHIKODE.673001

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

¶11

ANSHAD NAZIM

¶12

GROUND FLOOR, HOTEL AIR VIEW BUILDING, VIP ROAD, OPP. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NEDUMBASSERY, VAPPALASSERY PO, ERNAKULAM. 683572.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.V.BOVAN CHERIAN VARKEY SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.P.S.SIDHARTHAN SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN SRI.VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT SRI.V.V.SADANANDAN (SREEMOOLANAGARAM)

¶14

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

FAO.No. 42 of 2018

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.

¶19

Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.14 of 2017 before the Additional District Judge-V, Ernakulam. He preferred a suit against the respondent seeking injunction restraining the respondent and his men from running a restaurant under the name and style “Adaminte Chayakkada”. According to the appellant, the respondent is passing off his goods and services by deceitful means.

¶20

Along with the suit, I.A.No.1725 of 2017 was filed for a temporary injunction for restraining the respondent from committing any act of passing off. The application was dismissed by the trial court. The court below considered Exts.P1 to P9 and B1 to B7 on the side of the rival parties and came to a conclusion that the respondent was conducting a business “Adaaminte Chaayakkada” from 14.2.2013 onwards and therefore, he should be regarded as the prior user of the

¶21

FAO.No. 42 of 2018

¶22

¶23

trade name. This finding is seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit is posted for plaintiff's evidence on 6.10.2018. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant will have to take some steps to amend the plaint and the learned counsel is having some personal inconvenience and therefore, the trial if started on 6.10.2018 will result in prejudice to the appellant.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, following directions are issued:

¶26

The court below shall defer trial of the case to 12.11.2018. In the meantime, if the appellant makes an application for amendment of the pleadings, the court below shall give an opportunity to the other side to be heard in that matter and if it is found to be allowable, the court below shall pass orders in accordance with law. The court below shall start trial of the case on 12.11.2018 and before that date, the pre-trial steps should be finished. The document produced by the appellant before this Court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC shall be permitted to be taken back and it may be produced

¶27

FAO.No. 42 of 2018

¶28

¶29

before the trial court, if the appellant so chooses.

¶30

All pending interlocutory applications will stand

dismissed.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD

JUDGE

Aneez Adam Koyappathody v. Anshad Nazim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneez Adam Koyappathody v. Anshad Nazim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lisha K.B. Vs Siva Binu

M.B.Ambujakshi Vs M.S.Narayanan Nair

Karunakaran Vs Land Tribunal

Antony Gorden Mendez Vs K.T.D.C. Hotels and Resorts Ltd.

C.K.Ravindran Vs C.K.Janaki Amma

Ananga. S Vs Union of India