High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners against the order dated 10th January, 2022 of the Commercial Court.
Petitioner’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as it contained directions contrary to “law of the land”. It was submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the First Appeal in question, has set aside interim injunction which had been granted ex-parte to the respondent. Thus, on the date when the impugned order was passed, there was no right left in the respondent which required protection.
It was further submitted that under Section 136 of the CPC, the court could not have appointed a Court Commissioner beyond its jurisdictional limits. Thirdly, Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 saved the vested rights of the petitioners as it was the predecessor-in-interest of the parties who had the Trademark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’ registered in their names. It was submitted that the family members being engaged in a dispute, the petitioners could not be prevented from using the trademark. The learned Court could not have further directed the petitioners to deposit the sale proceeds in the court or furnish a bank guarantee, as such orders were beyond the jurisdiction vested in a court.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition itself was not maintainable. It was argued that the scope of exercise of powers under Article 227 was very restricted and the petitioners have failed to disclose any error in the impugned orders. It was further submitted that since the suit was still pending, protection of the interests of the respondent was but natural, since they were the registered proprietors of the trade mark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court’s conscience or the conclusions were so perverse that it becomes absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the court to interfere. The powers under Article 227 will be used sparingly.
HC relied upon the case of M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. Vs. Fakhruddin M.A. Baker And Anr where SC observed that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred to the High Courts under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is limited to overseeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority and is not meant to correct an error, even if apparent on the face of the record. A mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract this jurisdiction.
Court observed that when the First Appeal was first heard, the Trial Court’s order restraining the petitioners in the suit, from using the trademark had been kept in abeyance and they were permitted to use the said trademark. Even if the application for release had been filed immediately after this interlocutory order was passed in the First Appeal, it would be incorrect to urge that the respondent’s right in the Trademark stood dislodged. It only permitted the petitioners to also use the Trademark.
Court observed that the respondent was also found disentitled for interim relief on account of their conduct. Once again, the appeal does not hold that the respondent had lost their rights to use the registered Trademark. In the circumstances to say that the impugned order was in violation of the view taken by the Division Bench would be incorrect.
Court stated that with regard to the application of Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, again, it has no bearing on the matter on hand, as the application disposed of by the learned Commercial Court was for the release of goods, on an application moved by the petitioners/defendants and it was not a determination of mutual rights in respect of the registered trademark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “no error in the impugned order is found merely on account of the observation that the rights of the respondent/plaintiff would be adequately protected, if certain directions were to be issued. There is no merit in the contention raised that such an order is beyond the ken of any court. In fact, in umpteen number of cases, the courts have balanced interests by issuing similar orders or even requiring the furnishing of security before release of money to the one who claimed to be entitled to it, pending disposal of the suit or the appeal as the case may be.”
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Asha Menon
Case Title: Black Diamond Trackparts Private Ltd. And Ors. v. Black Diamond Motors Private Ltd.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments