Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
In Re: Ksb Properties Pvt.Ltd vs Ksb Aktiengesellschaft & Anr on 17 March, 2015
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
17.03.15
Item No.64
Court No.17
K.Mitra
F.A. No. 6 of 2015
In re: An application for extension of the interim order being CAN No. 1913 of 2015 filed on
16.02.2015;
And
In re: KSB Properties Pvt.Ltd.
- Versus -
KSB Aktiengesellschaft & Anr.
Mr. Ravi K. Kapoor
Mr. R. Bhattacharya
Mr. Debdut Mukherjee
Mr. Ganesh N. Jagodia
For the Appellant
Mr. D.Ghosh
Mr. Arindam Chandra
Mr. Bharat Shah
Mr. Atis Ghosh
For the Respondents
The application has been filed for extending the stay granted by this Court on 26th November, 2014.
The Division Bench had stayed the decree passed by the Trial Court until 31st January, 2015. It appears that thereafter the Appellant/Applicant tried to have the matter listed before different Benches, but failed. The matter has been listed today. However, the stay granted earlier has expired.
The learned Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, submits that the stay should be extended as the Appellant has been enjoying that order from 26th November, 2014.
This application is vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents. He submits that once the stay has expired, there is no question of extending the same. He further submits that while granting the stay, the Division Bench did not take note of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Sony Kabushiki Kaisha -versus- Maha Luxmi Textile Mills, 2009 (41) PTC 184 CAL. He further submits that the Plaintiffs/Respondents had enjoyed an injunction against the Defendant/Appellant in 2010 and, therefore, it should not be interfered with and the Trial Court's decision should not be stayed.
The Plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacturing pumps while the Defendant/Appellant is in the Real Estate business. Both the Plaintiffs/Respondents and the Appellant/Defendant use the trade mark "KSB"
After considering the arguments of the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to stay the decision of the Trial Court since it had already been stayed till 31st January, 2015 and it was only because of the unavailability of the Court that the stay could not be extended. We must note here that the Respondents did not make any application before this Court to modify the order or challenge the same before the Supreme Court.
In these circumstances, we are of the view that the stay granted earlier should be extended till the appeal is heard finally.
It appears from the office endorsement dated March 9, 2015 that the Lower Court Records of this case have already been called for.
Office is directed to check whether the Lower Court Records of this case have arrived and if received to examine the same and issue notice of the arrival of the Lower Court Records on the learned Advocate for the Appellant The Appellant is directed to prepare and file requisite number of informal paper books, printed, typewritten or cyclostyled, as the case may be, out of court, within six weeks from the date of service of notice of arrival of Lower Court Records on the learned Advocate for the Appellant.
All formalities regarding preparation of paper books are dispensed with, but the learned Advocate for the Appellant is directed to incorporate all the relevant documents in the informal paper book.
Liberty to mention the appeal for hearing as and when the same becomes ready.
With the aforesaid directions, the application being CAN No. 1913 of 2015 stands disposed of.
We make no order as to costs.
(Nishita Mhatre, J.) (R.K. Bag, J.)