Gujarat High Court
Karam Multipack Pvt. Ltd vs Karamgreen Bags on 21 March, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 136 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 136 of 2023
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 137 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
In
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 137 of 2023
==========================================================
KARAM MULTIPACK PVT. LTD.
Versus
KARAMGREEN BAGS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIREN U TRIVEDI(5103) for the Appellant - Original Plaintiff
MS RUSHVI N SHAH(5881) for the Respondent - Original Defendant
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 21/03/2024
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1.1 The Appeal from Order No.136 of 2023, filed under Order XLIII Rule (1)(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, preferred by the appellant - original plaintiff challenging the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned 10 th Additional District Judge, Gondal, District :
Rajkot, below Exh.5 (injunction application) in TM Suit No.4 of 2022.Page 1 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined 1.2 The Appeal from Order No.137 of 2023, filed under Order XLIII Rule (1)(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, preferred by the appellant - original plaintiff challenging the impugned order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned 10 th Additional District Judge, Gondal, District :
Rajkot, below Exh.5 (injunction application) in TM Suit No.5 of 2022.
1.3 Since the facts, issues and parties involved in both these appeals are same, with consent of both the learned advocates, both these appeals are heard and decided together by this Court.
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under :
2.1 The plaintiff has preferred two suits i.e. Trade Mark Suit No.11 of 2021 and Trade Mark Suit No.12 of 2021 before the learned trial Court for infringement of registered trademark and passing off action under Sections 27(2) and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, inter-alia praying to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and marketing its product under the trademark from using the trademark :-
(i) KARAMGREEN in respect of school bag, air bag, college bag, gents pouch, fancy bag, shopping bag, tracking bag, Page 2 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined travelling bag, office bag and soft luggage bag in Class-18 and non-woven textile fabrics in Class-24 and (ii) KARAM GREEN TEX, which is deceptively similar to it which amounts to infringement of trademark plaintiff's mark KARAMGREEN TEX.
2.2 Along with the suits, the plaintiff has also filed an injunction applications - Exh.5.
2.3 Upon notice, the defendant has appeared and filed its written statement in the suit as well as reply to the injunction application Exh.9 on 07.03.2022.
The appellant has also filed rejoinder affidavit at Exh.12 on 31.03.2022.
The defendant has filed its written arguments at Exh.13 before the learned trial Court.
2.4 Thereafter, for administrative reasons, the suits were transferred to another Court and therefore, re-numbered as TM Suits No.4 and 5 of 2022.
2.5 After considering the evidence on record and after considering the submissions / written arguments made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, the learned trial Court has rejected the injunction application Exh.5 of both Page 3 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined suits.
2.6 It is these two impugned orders, which are challenged by the appellant - original plaintiff before this Court in these Appeals from Order proceedings.
3. Heard learned advocates.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Hiren U. Trivedi for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial Court has not considered the material fact that the appellant company is established in the year 2006, whereas the defendant firm is established in the year 2010. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court has also not considered the fact that the appellant could be assumed and has established a monopoly on the said word in view of the fact that the appellant can be said to have acquired a secondary or subsidiary meaning of the word 'KARAM' in course of trade.
He has submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the Trademark Registry has not imposed any condition or restriction on the applications filed by the plaintiff for registration which has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.
4.2 He has further submitted that the learned trial Page 4 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined Court has not considered all the ingredients of granting injunction application i.e. prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, however, without assigning any finding with respect to it, decided the injunction applications - Exh.5. He has also submitted that admittedly, the appellant is the prior user of the said trade mark and also registered proprietor of the mark 'KARAMGREEN'.
4.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following decisions :
(i) [2004 (28) PTC 377 (Guj.)] - Shree Sainath Industries versus Sainath Auto Industries
(ii) 1996 AIR SCW 3514 - N.R. Dongre versus Whirlpool Corporation
(iii) [2004 (28) PTC 121 (SC)] - Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd., versus Sudhir Bhatia
(iv) (2016) 2 SCC 683 - S.Syed Mohideen versus P.Sulochana Bai 4.4 He has submitted that both these Appeals from Order may be allowed.
5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Rushvi N. Shah for the respondent has submitted that the appellant is guilty of Page 5 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined suppression veri and suppression falsi. She has submitted that the appellant has suppressed the material facts from the learned trial Court. She has submitted that the respondent has been using the trademark KARAM GREEN since the year 2010. She has submitted that the appellant is selling the raw fabrics to the respondent since the year 2012 continuously, as per the invoices issued by the appellant itself.
5.2 She has further submitted that the Directors of the appellant were earlier the partners of the respondent firm and they have retired from the partnership firm with a condition that they will not use the said trademark 'Karam Green Bags' in future. She has submitted that the respondent through the advocate has given reply to the notice issued by the appellant dated 09.02.2018 which has not been placed on record by the appellant before the learned trial Court. She has also submitted after giving the notice by the appellant, the appellant has supplied the raw materials to the respondent.
5.3 She has submitted that this is a clear case of delay, latches and acquiescence for almost more than 12 years. She has also submitted that since the appellant is supplying raw fabrics to the respondent, the appellant has Page 6 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined been aware of the respondent since then and the appellant has falsely mentioned the cause of action.
5.4 She has submitted that the appellant is the non-
user of the mark. She has further submitted that the appellant has failed to submit any documents to show that the appellant is using the trademark KARAM GREEN before this Court or before the learned trial Court. She has submitted that therefore, the appellant has failed to establish any goodwill and reputation in the market.
5.5 She has also submitted that the appellant is not using the mark 'KARAM GREEN' as per the invoices relied on by the appellant itself.
5.6 She has submitted that both the marks - of the appellant and the respondent, are different and distinct. She has submitted that the appellant has obtained the trademark registration for 'KARAM' with the word 'K' in Class-18 and in Class-24 as device mark 'K KARAM', whereas the respondent has applied for 'Karam Green Bags' registration in Class-24 only. Therefore, there is no similarity whatsoever between the marks of the appellant and the respondent. She has submitted that mere registration does not give any new right to the appellant.
Page 7 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined 5.7 In support of her submissions, she has relied upon the following decisions :
(i) MANU/GJ/0537/2017 - Appeal from Order No.89 of 2017 (DB) Appeal Silk Mills Pvt.
Ltd., versus Apple Sarees Pvt. Ltd.,
(ii) MANU/SCOR/58071/2017 - SLP No.25843/2017 & SLP No.25844 of 2017 -
Apple Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., versus Apple Sarees Pvt. Ltd.
(iii) (2010) 2 SCC 114 - Dalip Singh versus State of UP
(iv) MANU/DE/1584/2017 - CS(Comm.)222/2017 -
Paramount Surgimed Limited versus Paramount Bed India Private Limited and Ors.
(v) AIR 2008 SC 2291 - Mandali Ranganna versus T. Ramachandra
(vi) 1990 (Supp.) 1 SCC 727 - Wander Ltd., versus Antox India Pvt. Ltd.
(vii) (2010) ILR 4 Delhi 220 - Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha versus Deepak Mangal
(viii) AIR 2018 SC 167 - Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha versus Deepak Mangal
(ix) Appeal from Order No.251 of 2008 (Guj.) -
Page 8 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined Cadila Healthcare Ltd., versus Biochem Pharmaceutical Industries
(x) Appeal from Order No.27 of 2019 (Guj.) -
Still Man versus Steel All Male
(xi) Appeal from Order No.30 of 2012 (Guj.) -
Samrat Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., versus Parakh Agro Industries Ltd.
(xii) AIR 1997 Guj. 177 - Sanidhya Organic versus United Phosphorous
(xiii) (2010) ILR 5 Delhi 180 - Atul Rawal versus M/s. S.B. Equipments
(xiv) Suit No.4364 of 1996 (Bom.) - Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd., versus M/s. Aksaar Enterprises 5.8 She has submitted that both these appeals from order may be dismissed.
6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also considered the documents available on record, including the paper-book. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court.
7. It is noted that the learned trial Court has Page 9 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined rejected the injunction applications and it is these orders of rejection of injunction applications, which are to be considered by this Court at this stage.
8. From the record, the following undisputed facts are emerged :
8.1 The Directors of the appellant company were earlier the partners of the respondent firm, which is registered in the year 2010.
8.2 The respondent firm is doing the business of the bags in the name and style of M/s. KARAM GREEN BAGS.
8.3 The defendant has been using the trademark -
'KARAM GREEN BAGS' since then.
8.4 The plaintiff company is a registered company under the Companies Act in the year 2006.
8.5 The appellant/s being the partners, have retired from the partnership firm in the year 2015.
8.6 While retiring as partners of the defendant firm, they have jointly agreed that they will not use the said Page 10 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined trademark 'KARAM GREEN BAGS'.
8.7 The trademark of the plaintiff company is registered as 'K with word KARAMGREEN' in Class-18 and 'K with word KARAM' in Class-24, whereas the trademark of the defendant is applied for registration as 'KARAM GREEN BAGS' in Class-24.
9.1 From the record, prima facie, it transpires that the defendant has been carrying on its business in the name and style of 'M/S. KARAM GREEN BAGS' since 09.04.2010, which is applied for registration under Class-24, whereas the plaintiff has applied for registration of trademark on 06.03.2013, which is registered under Class-18 and Class-24.
9.2 Further, the goods provided by the plaintiff under Class-24 are completely different from the goods provided by the defendant.
9.3 Further, there is no word 'K' with the trademark of the defendant at all.
9.4 There is no similarity between the device marks of the parties.
Page 11 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined 9.5 From the record, it transpires that the appellant has suppressed the material facts that since the year 2010, the appellant has been supplying the raw material to the respondent, that too after issuance of notice. Therefore, the appellant is aware about the fact but maintaining the business relation with the respondent and has not taken any care earlier. Therefore, the appellant is aware of the fact of using the mark by the defendant.
9.6 The appellant has been providing raw fabrics to the respondent for a long, which can be seen from the invoices annexed with the paper-book.
9.7 I have gone through the material available on record, I could not find any documentary evidence to prove that the appellant is using the trademark 'KARAMGREEN' in any manner. Mere registration does not give any new rights to the appellant as per law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.Syed Mohideen (supra).
9.8 It is a matter of record that the trademark of the plaintiff 'KARAMGREEN' and 'KARAMGREEN TEX' has been registered after the registration of the trademark of the defendant 'M/S. KARAM GREEN BAGS'.
Page 12 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined 9.9 Further, the Trademark Registry has granted a trademark to the parties, may be because of the fact that there is no similarity between both the marks, and further, the mark of the plaintiff is registered in Class-18 and Class-
24 and the mark of the defendant is used goods falling in Class-24 only. Therefore, the goods of the appellant and the respondent are different, their Class are different, their trade circle is also different.
9.10 From the record and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds after considering the material available on record that, there is no prima facie case in favour of the appellant, so also the factors that balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not in favour of the plaintiff - appellant by considering the above mentioned aspects of the matter, at this stage, as this is an interim stage and therefore, permanent injunction cannot be granted at this stage. The parties can prove their respective case on merits after full-fledged trial and the learned trial Court will decide the suit on its own merits.
10. At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are as under :
Page 13 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined "Provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
Sec.27. No action for infringement of unregistered trade mark -
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person, or the remedies in respect thereof.
Sec.29. Infringement of registered trade marks -- (1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade Page 14 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined mark.
(2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of --
(a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
(3) In any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2), the court shall presume Page 15 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
(4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which --
(a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
(5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business Page 16 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he --
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark;
(c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
(d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising.
(7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labeling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods Page 17 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee.
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising --
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.
(9) Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly.
Page 18 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined Sec.30. Limits on effect of registered trade mark. -
(2) A registered trade mark is not infringed where --
(a) the use in relation to goods or services indicates the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services or other characteristics of goods or services;
(b) a trade mark is registered subject to any conditions or limitations, the use of the trade mark in any manner in relation to goods to be sold or otherwise traded in, in any place, or in relation to goods to be exported to any market or in relation to services for use or available for acceptance in any place or country outside India or in any other circumstances, to which, having regard to those conditions or limitations, the Page 19 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined registration does not extend;
(e) the use of a registered trade mark, being one of two or more trade marks registered under this Act which are identical or nearly resemble each other, in exercise of the right to the use of that trade mark given by registration under this Act.
Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
O.XXXIX - TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS R.1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.--Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise--
(a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
(b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to [defrauding] his creditors, [(c) that the defendant threatens to Page 20 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit,] the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property [or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit] as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
R.2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.--(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained, of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
Page 21 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit."
O.XLIII. APPEALS FROM ORDERS.
R.1 Appeal from orders -- An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: --
(r) an order under rule 1, rule 2 1 [rule 2A], rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX;"
11.1 It would also be fruitful at this stage to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Wander Ltd. (supra), more particularly para : 5 thereof, which reads as under :
"5. Usually, the prayer for grant of an interlocutory injunction is at a stage when the existence of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. The court, at this stage, acts on certain well settled principles of Page 22 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined administration of this form of interlocutory remedy which is both temporary and discretionary. The object of the interlocutory injunction, it is stated "...is to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not adequately be compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial. The need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the 'balance of convenience lies."
The interlocutory remedy is intended to preserve in status quo, the rights of parties which may appear on a prima facie case. The court also, in restraining a defendant from exercising what he considers his legal right but what the plaintiff would like to be prevented, puts into the scales, as a relevant consideration whether the defendant has yet to commence his enterprise or whether he Page 23 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined has already been doing so in which latter case considerations somewhat different from those that apply to a case where the defendant is yet to commence his enterprise, are attracted."
11.2 It would further be fruitful at this stage to refer to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (supra), more particularly para : 33 thereof, which read as under :
"33. If goodwill or reputation in the particular jurisdiction (in India) is not established by the plaintiff, no other issue really would need any further examination to determine the extent of the plaintiff's right in the action of passing off that it had brought against the defendants in the Delhi High Court. Consequently, even if we are to disagree with the view of the Division Bench of the High Court in accepting the defendant's version of the origin of the mark 'Prius', the eventual conclusion of the Division Bench will, nonetheless, have to be sustained. We cannot help but also to observe that in the present case, the plaintiff's delayed approach to the Courts has Page 24 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/136/2023 ORDER DATED: 21/03/2024 undefined remained unexplained. Such delay cannot be allowed to work to the prejudice of the defendants who had kept on using its registered mark to market its goods during the inordinately long period of silence maintained by the plaintiff."
12. In view of above and under the circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the arguments canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant - original plaintiff.
The learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned orders and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Therefore, no interference needs to be called for in the impugned orders. Any observation may jeopardise the rights of either party. This Court has observed from the record available with it only. Therefore, these appeals from order needs to be dismissed and are dismissed, at admission stage, accordingly. No order as to costs.
13. In view of above, civil applications would not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M.H. DAVE Page 25 of 25 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 21 20:59:45 IST 2024