R.Logenthiran Vs Selkon Industries Private Limited

Though the application was ordered on 07.10.2025, as there was bereft of details, the present order has been passed today incorporating all the details as claimed by the applicant herein.

¶13

The application has been filed seeking permission to file the additional

¶14

documents by the petitioner in O.P. (PT) No.7 of 2024 as enumerated in the

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

schedule, which are extracted hereunder:

¶18

SCHEDULE

¶19

*S.Nos.*	*Date*	*Particulars of the document*	*Nature of document*
1.	24.04.2024	Copy of the legal notice dated 24.04.2024 issued to the respondents 1 and 2 by one of the customers of the first respondent	Photocopy
2.	21.06.2025	Copy of police complaint in Complaint No.198/2025 on the file of Malayampalayam Police Station filed by Mr.Antonysamy against the second respondent along with pictures of the malfunctioning products sold by the first respondent	Photocopy
3.	11.07.2025	A copy of police complaint in Complaint No.224/2025 on the file of Malayampalayam Police Station filed by Mr.Sivakumar against the first respondent	Photocopy
4.	--	A copy of the Online CSR status details of the complaint filed by Mr.Sivakumar	Printout
5.	--	A printout of the website https://www.diffulpump.com/products-list.htm showing the range of Chinese-manufactured pumps identical to those sold by respondents 1 and 2	Printout
6.	--	A printout of the website https://www.shanghaimetal.com/submersible_motor- 15911.htm showcasing submersible motors similar to those marketed and sold by respondents 1 and 2	Printout
7.		Images of the petitioner's workshop	Photocopy

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in an application in (PT)

¶21

A.No.3 of 2025 filed by him for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner relating

¶22

to the photographs filed by respondents 1 and 2 at the time of claiming the registration before the Trade Mark Authority, this Court, while dismissing the said application seeking appointment of an advocate Commissioner, in paragraph No.5 had observed as follows:

¶23

'In these circumstances, in my view, appointing a commissioner to

¶24

2/5

¶25

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

¶26

take photographs of the respective premises of the petitioner/applicant and respondents 1 and 2 would serve no purpose. Therefore, this application is dismissed by leaving it open to the petitioner to establish wrongful obtainment through appropriate means, including by filing photographs of Mr.Ruthramoorthy's workshop.'

¶27

3.Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that those documents sought to be marked as additional documents are irrelevant to the impugned patent and baseless allegations are made by the applicant so as to tarnish the reputation of respondents 1 and 2.

¶28

4.Since this Court has given permission to the applicant to establish wrongful obtainment through appropriate means, including by filing photographs of the applicant's father Mr.Ruthramoorthy's workshop, there is no impediment in marking those documents as secondary evidence, subject to its admissibility, proof and relevancy. Accordingly, the applicant is permitted to file additional documents, as disclosed in the said application. However, it is made clear that those documents are allowed to be marked, subject to its admissibility, proof and relevancy.

06.11.2025

vga

3/5

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

¶33

N.SENTHILKUMAR,J.

¶34

vga