Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Gopal Sabu vs Rajkumar Sabu on 18 July, 2019
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Ajay Rastogi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFER PETITION (C) No. 1676 of 2017
GOPAL SABU & ORS. .......PETITIONERS
Versus
RAJKUMAR SABU ........ RESPONDENT
WITH
TRANSFER PETITION (C) No.1328 OF 2018
C.A.Nos.5644-5645 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.1472-1473 of 2019)
O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 1472-1473/2019.
2. TP (C) No. 1676 of 2017 has been filed by Gopal Sabu and others seeking transfer of CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016 titled as Mr. Rajkumar Sabu v. Ms. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors., from the High Court of Judicature at Delhi to the District Court, Salem, Tamil Nadu and to consolidate the same with an earlier instituted suit numbered as OS No. 148 of 2016, titled as Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr., pending adjudication before the District Court, Salem.
3. TP (C) No. 1328 of 2018 has been filed by Rajkumar Sabu seeking transfer of OS No. 148 of 2016 mentioned above to the Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by High Court, to be heard along with CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016. SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.07.23 17:37:35 IST Reason:
4. It is relevant to mention that the parties, Gopal Sabu and Rajkumar Sabu, are brothers and there are certain disputes between 2 them regarding trademark and allied issues.
5. SLP (C) Nos.1472-1473/2019 have been filed by Rajkumar Sabu questioning the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CMA No. 846/2018 and CMP No. 6995/2018, whereby the High Court restrained him from using the disputed trade mark “SACHAMOTI” by allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd (through Gopal Sabu) and setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Principal District Court, Salem in I.A. No. 156 of 2016 in O.S. No. 148 of 2016. In SLP (C) Nos. 1472 – 1473 of 2019, this Court while issuing notice on 16.01.2019, stayed the operation of the judgment and order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Madras High Court in CMA No. 846 of 2018 and CMP No.6995/2018.
6. During the pendency of the transfer petitions before this Court, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in order dated 22.01.2019, at the time of deciding the interim application relating to injunction in CS (COMM.) No. 761 of 2016 sought against Gopal Sabu with respect to the disputed trade mark, observed thus:
“6. The question of entitlement to use of ‘SACHAMOTI’ being subject matter of the lis pending in the Supreme Court, is not to be decided in this Court. Thus the injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ has to be confirmed with liberty to the parties to apply for variation/ modification after the outcome of the proceedings in the Supreme Court.” On a perusal of the paragraph quoted above, it is clear that the application for injunction was not heard by the Delhi High Court on merits, but the order of temporary injunction was confirmed since the matter was pending before this Court. It was 3 also observed by the High Court that the parties were at liberty to apply for variation/modification of the said interim order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The matters before us were adjourned several times on the ground that the parties were inclined to settle the matter by way of mediation, which ultimately failed.
Today, after hearing the learned senior counsel for the parties at length, we are of the opinion that both the suits should be clubbed and heard together by the same Court. So also, the applications for injunction filed by the rival parties in the respective suits should also be heard by the same learned Judge to avoid conflicting orders. Hence, we deem it proper to pass the following order:
(i) OS No. 148 of 2016, titled as Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. v.
Rajkumar Sabu & Anr., pending before the District Court, Salem, be transferred to the Delhi High Court for adjudication along with CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016, titled as Mr. Rajkumar Sabu v. Ms. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. pending before the Delhi High Court.
(ii) The injunction granted by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 10.06.2016, and confirmed by order dated 22.01.2019, is hereby set aside. The interim application for temporary injunction filed in CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016 stands revived before the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court and may be heard on merits. FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 69/2019, FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 72/2019 and FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 73/2019, filed before the Division Bench of the High Court 4 as against the order dated 22.01.2019, stand disposed of.
(iii) The order of the Madras High Court dated 07.01.2019 in CMA No. 846 of 2018 and CMP No. 6995 of 2018, as also the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Principal District Court, Salem, are set aside. The application for injunction filed in OS No. 148 of 2016 by Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. (through Gopal Sabu) also stands revived, and is transferred along with the said suit to the Delhi High Court to be heard in the transferred suit along with the application revived in CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016 mentioned above.
(iv) The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court is requested to decide both the abovementioned applications for injunction in the respective suits within three months.
(v) In view of the clubbing of OS No. 148 of 2016, titled as Sabu Trade Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajkumar Sabu & Anr., pending before the District Court, Salem, along with CS (COMM) No. 761 of 2016, titled as Mr. Rajkumar Sabu v. Ms. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. pending before the Delhi High Court, and the fact that C.S.No.195/2016, pending before the Calcutta High Court, is identical to the one transferred above, we think it is unnecessary for the parties to litigate and pursue the matter pending before the Calcutta High Court. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to withdraw C.S.No.195/2016.
5
(vi) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the applications for injunction shall be decided by the High Court on their own merit, uninfluenced by any observations made by either this Court or any High Court regarding this matter. The transfer petitions and the appeals stand disposed of in the above terms.
As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
.........................J. (N.V.RAMANA) ..........................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) ........................J. (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI;
JULY 18, 2019.
6
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.3 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).1676/2017 GOPAL SABU & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAJKUMAR SABU Respondent(s) IA No.91070/2017 - STAY APPLICATION WITH T.P.(C) No. 1328/2018 (XVI-A) IA No.107022/2018 - EX-PARTE STAY SLP(C) No.1472-1473/2019 (XII) IA No. 12994/2019 - RECALLING THE COURTS ORDER Date : 18-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI For Petitioner(s) Dr.Rajeev Dhavan, Sr.Adv. In TP(C)1328/18 Mr.Divyakant Lahoti, AOR & SLP(C)1472-73/19 Mr.Parikshit Ahuja, Adv.
& for Resp. in Ms.Amrita Grover, Adv.
TP(C)1676/17 Ms.Siddhi Padiya, Adv.
Ms.Nupur Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.Parag Tripathi, Sr.Adv.
In TP(C)1328/18 & Mr.Shailen Bhatia, Adv.
SLP(C)1472-1473/19 Ms.Ekta Nayar S., Adv. & for petr.in Ms.Latataksh Joshi, Adv. T.P.(C)1676/17 Mr.Vidushi Chandna, Adv.
Mr.Balraj Dewan, Adv.
Mr.Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.1472- 1473/2019.7
The transfer petitions and the appeals stand disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (RAJ RANI NEGI)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)