Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-defendants for infringement of the registered trade mark 'SHYAM' and passing off, as both parties manufactured and sold TMT bars. The respondent-plaintiff alleged that the appellants had agreed to phase out use of the mark but later used 'SHYAM METALICS' on packaging, leading to the suit and an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Single Judge of the High Court, on 2nd April 2019, granted time to the appellants to file affidavit-in-opposition, directed maintenance of weekly accounts, and made prima facie observations without granting or refusing the injunction. The respondent-plaintiff appealed to the Division Bench, which on 24th December 2019 modified the order to grant an injunction restraining the appellants from using the mark 'SHYAM' until suit disposal. The appellants challenged this before the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were the maintainability of the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the correctness of the Division Bench's interference. The appellants argued that the Single Judge's order was not a 'judgment' as defined in Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania, making the appeal untenable, and that the Division Bench usurped jurisdiction. The respondent contended that the appeal was maintainable due to infringement of a valuable right and that injunction should follow established infringement. The Supreme Court analyzed Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and the precedent in Shah Babulal Khimji, concluding that the Single Judge's order, which merely granted time and made prima facie observations without deciding the injunction, did not constitute a judgment. Therefore, the appeal before the Division Bench was not maintainable. The Court refrained from delving into the merits to avoid prejudice, quashed the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Judge's order, emphasizing procedural correctness over substantive issues.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Intra-court Appeal - Maintainability - Clause 15 of Letters Patent - The Supreme Court considered whether an order by a Single Judge granting time to file affidavit-in-opposition and directing maintenance of weekly accounts constituted a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent - Held that the order was not a judgment as it neither granted nor refused interim injunction, and thus the appeal before the Division Bench was not maintainable, restoring the Single Judge's order (Paras 10-11, 15-16). B) Intellectual Property Law - Trade Mark Infringement - Interim Injunction - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The Court addressed the issue of granting interim injunction in a suit for infringement of registered trade mark 'SHYAM' and passing off - The Single Judge had made prima facie observations but deferred the decision, which the Division Bench modified to grant an injunction - The Supreme Court refrained from merits, focusing on procedural correctness and maintainability (Paras 6-8, 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court against the Single Judge's order granting time to file affidavit-in-opposition and directing maintenance of weekly accounts was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, and whether the Division Bench's interference was correct.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 24th December 2019 and restored the order of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd April 2019.
Law Points
- Intra-court appeal maintainability under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
- definition of 'judgment' as per Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania
- principles for granting interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- infringement of registered trade mark
