The Madras High Court dismissed an original side appeal filing under Order XXXVI Rule 1. The Court declined to interfere with the Single Judge's order rejecting a claim for damages in a passing off suit, noting a lack of evidence and distinguishing relied-upon precedent.
The original side appeal is dismissed and there are no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.10.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.S.A.No.181 of 2017
Auroville Foundation Represented by its Secretary, Auroville Foundtion Bhawan, Administrative Area, Auroville-605 101. .. Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, No.17/35, 2nd Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020. .. Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Original Side Appeal is filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the judgment and decree dated 02.02.2017 made in C.S.No.723 of 2013 on the file of this Court.
For appellant :: Mr.Rohini Ravikumar For Respondent :: Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.M.Sundresh,J.)
This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, being aggrieved over the rejection of the relief qua the damages alone by judgment dated 02.02.2017 in C.S.No.723 of 2013, which was filed seeking passing off and damages.
was carrying on numerous projects and the name “Auroville” along with Ramaniyam was one among them. A further finding has been given that the respondent was doing business from 1986 onwards and the flats for which the suit has been filed have been sold.
5.Insofar as the damages part is concerned, admittedly, this is one among the projects undertaken by the respondent. The respondent is merely suffixed the name “Auroville”. It is not, as if, in the subsequent projects, the same name was used. There is no other material, as rightly observed by the learned single Judge, to substantiate the damages, if any. The evidence of the respondent is to the effect that the project in question was started in the year 2010-2011. There is no substantial material produced by the appellant to disprove the said evidence that the project was completed in the year 2013 by effecting the sale. The suit was filed on 30.09.2013 after exchange of notices. Therefore, we are of the view that on the date of filing of the suit, almost all the flats have been sold. The fact that for the subsequent projects as well as the prior projects, the name “Auroville” has not been used is also a factor to be borne in mind as rightly held by the learned single Judge. The question of damages though punitive or otherwise, has to be seen from case to case. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a reputed construction company.
-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar raa
Copy to:
O.S.A.No.181 of 2017
CNR(CO)
SP(04/12/2017)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether damages should have been awarded in a passing off suit despite a decree for passing off having been obtained.
Whether punitive damages were warranted given that the respondent discontinuing use of the name after being put on notice.
Whether the original side appeal challenging the rejection of the damage claim ought to be allowed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India LimitedDistinguished¶24
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited (2014 (57) PTC 495 (Del))
Auroville Foundation
Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Ltd.
M.M.Sundresh
M.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
