Disposed

Simpson and Company Ltd. v. Shri Rhythm Agarwal Trading as Radison Paints

Madras HC14 Jul 2021OA/202/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that while the plaintiff has a right to refuse to answer interrogatories, it can draw an adverse inference if the questions are within the plaintiff's knowledge. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and directed the plaintiff to record evidence on a specified date.

What did the court decide?

Applications closed; adverse inference permissible; plaintiff directed to mount witness box on 03.08.2021; matter reverted to court on 26.08.2021.

Simpson and Company Ltd. Vs Shri Rhythm Agarwal Trading… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

O.A.Nos.202 and 203 of 2019, A.No.1611 of 2021 in C.S.No.162 of 2019

¶2

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶3

The defendant herein has served interrogatories to the plaintiff to certain queries. However, the plaintiff has filed a counter saying that they are not bound to answer all or any of the queries to admit the fact. In

¶4

paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated as below:

¶5

“In the circumstances, this respondent is not bound to answer all or any of the interrogatories nor to admit or answer any of the queries to the notice to admit facts. This respondent is not bound under law to disclose the information especially when the defendant has not filed their written statement. I further state that these applications have been taken out with an ulterior motive to discover some flaw in this respondent's case. The application lack bonafide and are intended to drag on the suit, for one reason or another.”

¶6

This Court is of the view that the plaintiff has every right to

¶7

remain silent and refuse to answer interrogatories entry but however, the

¶8

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

¶9

1/2

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

VRI Court can draw adverse inference, in case, the plaintiff refused to answer interrogatories which are well within his knowledge. Recording the same, the applications are closed. Parties are directed to proceed for examination of witnesses.

¶12

3.Since the suit arising out of infringement of the plaintiff's trademark by the defendant, which is an intellectual property it is a commercial suit falling within the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. Under section 134 of the Trademarks Act, this Court has jurisdiction since the plaintiff is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In adherence to the time line framed under the Commercial Courts Act, the plaintiff is directed to mount the witness box to give evidence on 03.08.2021. The evidence shall be recorded by the learned Additional

¶13

Master II and the matter may be reverted back to the Court for further

¶14

proceedings on 26.08.2021.

¶15

vri

¶16

2/2

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Simpson and Company Ltd. v. Shri Rhythm Agarwal Trading as Radison Paints

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simpson and Company Ltd. v. Shri Rhythm Agarwal Trading as Radison Paints

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

Goomo Orbit Corporate and Leisure Travels(I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs G.I.Retail Private Limited and 5 others

S.Khaja Mohideen Vs Star Music 2others

Google India Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kotapadi Jayaram and 53 others

Yes Bank Limited Vs M/s. Uniply Decor Limited and 3 others

M/s.Mrf Ltd. Vs Sumit Gumber

Res Q Technologies Pvt.Ltd Vs Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd