TRI-STAR PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS JAGDAMBA IMPEX-SC

%

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.8593 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.22113 of 2014)

M/S TRI-STAR PRODUCTS PVT LTD

.......APPELLANT

VERSUS

M/S JAGDAMBA IMPEX

......RESPONDENT

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.8594 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP(C)No.22304 of 2014)

O          R             D                E        R

Leave granted.

Having considered the impugned order, which is interim in

nature, we are of the view that it was not proper for the High

Court to interpret Section 15 of the Copyright Act with reference

to the factual dispute between the parties.                                                     Accordingly, while

disposing of the instant appeals, we set aside the observations

recorded by the High Court, with reference to the applicability of

Section 15 of the Copyright Act. It will be open to the trial court

to independently examine the issue, based on the determination of

the relevant facts, between the parties.

We are also satisfied that the observations recorded by

the High Court in paragraph 16 of the impugned order to the effect,

that the suit had been filed on the basis of incorrect legal advice

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by

Satish Kumar Yadav

Date: 2014.09.10

were totally unjustified.

15:49:21 IST

Reason:                                                                                                        The matter will be examined by the trial

court without reference to the aforesaid determination by the High

Court.

2

As noticed hereinabove, our denial for interference is

based on the fact that the impugned order pertains to an interim

claim,          raised           by        the           appellant.        We        would        in        the           aforesaid

situation, consider it just and appropriate to direct the trial

court, to expedite the disposal of the controversy between the

parties, preferably within one year from today.

The

respondent

is

represented

before

this

Court

on

caveat.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the cost

imposed on the appellant be waived.

Ordered accordingly.

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

...........................J.

(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

...........................J.

(ARUN MISHRA)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 8, 2014.

3

ITEM NO.30

COURT NO.7

SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I N D I A

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 22113/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05/05/2014 in FAO No. 128/2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at N. Delhi)

M/S TRI-STAR PRODUCTS PVT LTD

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S JAGDAMBA IMPEX

Respondent(s)

With I.A.No.1 (Appln.for permission to file additional documents)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 22304/2014

(With Interim Relief and Office Report)

With I.A.No.1 (Appln.for permission to file additional documents)

Date : 08/09/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr.Akhil Sibal, Sr.Adv.

Mr.S.K.Bansal, Adv.

Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr.Chander M.Lall, Adv.

Mr.Rohit, Adv.

Mr.Subhash Bhutoria, Adv.

Mr. N. Ganpathy,Adv.

Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

(SATISH KUMAR YADAV)

COURT MASTER

(PHOOLAN WATI ARORA)

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed order is placed on the file)

RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL VS LOCK & LOCKING DEVICES-R.S.ENDLAW, H.J.

$~76

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   RFA 68/2009 & C.M. No. 30627/2018

RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL                                     ..... Appellant

Through :      Mr S.K.Bansal and Mr Ajay Amitabh

Suman, Advocates.

versus

LOCK & LOCKING DEVICES                                            ..... Respondent

Through :      Mr Harshvardhan Pandey, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

%                                         09.08.2018

1.                This order is in continuation of yesterday’s order.

2.                The counsel for the appellant/applicant has handed over in Court the affidavit, as was directed to be filed, along with documents and which are taken on record.

3.                As per the said affidavit and as per the counsel for the appellant/applicant, whatever stocks bearing the impugned mark were in possession of the appellant/applicant, at the instance of the respondent, have already been seized by the Police from the premises of the appellant/applicant.

4.                The appellant/applicant however states, that the appellant/applicant, from the month of April, 2018 till the month of July, 2018 has effected sale of the goods with the impugned mark to

RFA 68/2009                                                                                                                       page 1 of 4

his distributor and the distributor of the appellant/applicant may be in possession of such of those goods with the impugned mark which have not been sold till date. It is contended that just like the respondent has got the goods with the impugned mark seized from the premises of the appellant/applicant, the respondent may also have the goods with the impugned mark seized from the premises of the distributor of the appellant.

5.                However, copies of the invoices filed by the appellant/applicant show the delivery to the distributor of the goods with the impugned mark being by way of sale with IGST paid thereon. The appellant/applicant present in person, on enquiry, states that IGST is paid on inter-State sales. I have thus enquired from the counsel for the appellant/applicant that once the appellant has delivered the goods with the impugned mark to his distributor, by way of sale, and not as an agent and not on sale or return basis, how can the distributor of the appellant/applicant be bound by the injunction order.

6.                It has been pointed out that the subject goods, being padlocks, bearing the embossed impugned mark, would be in possession of the purchasers thereof also and the injunction cannot possibly direct the persons who have purchased the said goods, from using the same.

7.                The counsel for the appellant/applicant confirms that the transaction between the appellant and the distributor namely M/s. Vijayan Lock Industries, Navi Mumbai-400708, is of sale and the property in goods has been transferred and M/s Vijayan Lock Industries has not taken the goods on sale or return basis.

RFA 68/2009                                                                                                                       page 2 of 4

8.                The counsel for the respondent agrees that in such situation, the distributor of appellant will not be bound by the injunction; he however states that VIJAYAN was the impugned mark and M/s Vijayan Lock Industries must be an entity of the appellant only.

9.                The counsel for the appellant/applicant, on enquiry, under instructions from the appellant/applicant present in Court, states that Ankit Aggarwal son of the appellant/applicant, is the sole proprietor of Vijayan Lock Industries.

10.           The same shows the mala fides of the appellant/applicant in moving the subject application, without disclosing to the Court that the distributor is an alter ego of the appellant/applicant. In fact the counsel for the appellant/applicant ought to have informed the Court, at the outset, of this fact. The Court cannot possibly decide all the large number of matters listed before it, without trusting the counsel; if such faith is lost, in each case, the Court will have to read the file minutely, without believing single word of the counsel, making the presence of the counsel redundant.

11.           The aforesaid act of the appellant/applicant is found to be a clear attempt to overreach the Court and to interfere with and obstruct the administration of justice and the appellant/applicant is liable to be proceeded against therefor. Not only so, all the goods, as per the particulars given in the affidavit handed over today, are liable to be delivered by the appellant/applicant to the respondent and if not delivered by the appellant/applicant, are liable to be seized from the premises of M/s. Vijayan Lock Industries.

RFA 68/2009                                                                                                                       page 3 of 4

12.           The counsel for the appellant/applicant apologizes and states that the appellant/applicant will make amends and will, within one week deliver all goods on his own to the respondent.

13.           The undertaking to this effect is given by the appellant/applicant present in Court, which is accepted and the appellant/applicant has been explained the consequences of the breach of the undertaking given to this Court.

14.           The counsel for the appellant/applicant also states that the appellant/applicant is willing to pay damages in the sum of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent as penalty for the aforesaid misconduct of the appellant/applicant. An undertaking is given to pay the said amount also within one week of today and which undertaking is also accepted.

15.           The application is dismissed.

16.           If the appellant/applicant is in violation/breach of any of the undertakings aforesaid, it will be open to the respondent to take appropriate action against the appellant/applicant including for breach of undertaking given to this Court. In such eventuality, it will also be open to the respondent to take the Police to whichsoever premises of the appellant/applicant or of any of his family members, for the purposes of seizure of the goods, particulars of which are given in the affidavit.

Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

AUGUST 09, 2018/‘Sn’..

RFA 68/2009                                                                                                                       page 4 of 4

Kamdhenu Limited Vs Kamdhenu Dairy-TP-SC

ITEM NO.2                                              COURT NO.2                                               SECTION XVI-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).  1212/2018

M/S KAMDHENU LIMITED

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

KAMDHENU DAIRY & ANR.

Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.65721/2018-STAY APPLICATION )

Date : 07-08-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN

For Petitioner(s)

Ms. S. Janani, AOR

Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this transfer petition.

The transfer petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

(NEETU KHAJURIA)

COURT MASTER

(ASHA SONI)

BRANCH OFFICER

Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal Vs Lock and Locking Devices

ITEM NO.61                                              COURT NO.9                                               SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)        No(s). 19018/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-07-2018 in RFA No. 68/2009 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)

RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

LOCKS AND LOCKING DEVICES (INDIA)

Respondent(s)

IA No. 99464 of 2018-Exem. From filing c/c of the impugned judgment)

IA No. 99464 of 2018-Permission to file addl. documents

Date : 23-07-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

For Petitioner(s)

Mr. Anunay Mehta, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Amitabh, Adv.

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, AOR

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Harshvardhan Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

We do not find any merit in this petition.

The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SHASHI SAREEN)

AR CUM PS

(SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

BRANCH OFFICER