Calcutta High Court
Malvika Foundation & Ors vs Eiilm Foundation & Ors on 26 July, 2013
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
ORDER SHEET
GA No. 2176 of 2013
CS No. 251 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
MALVIKA FOUNDATION & ORS.
Versus
EIILM FOUNDATION & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE PATHERYA
Date : 26th July, 2013.
Mr. S.N. Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. U. Roy,
Mr. A. Mukherjee,
Mr. Deepak Jain, Advs.
...for the petitioners
The Court : In a suit for perpetual injunction restraining
the defendants from infringing the petitioners' trade mark "EIILM" so also
cancellation of certain board resolution and not treating the properties of
the petitioners as properties of the respondent no. 1, this application has
been filed for interim relief.
The case of the petitioner is that in July, 1996 the petitioner was incorporated for imparting education. An institute was set up under the name and style of EIILM for imparting management courses. The respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 were trustees of the petitioner trust and between 2011 and 2013 had resigned. In fact it has come to light that even prior to the aforementioned trustees submitting their resignation the 2 respondent no. 1 was incorporated. The petitioner is registered in the mark EIILM since 2003. The respondent no. 1 including respondent nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 are holding themselves out to be a unit of the petitioner no. 1. In fact properties of the petitioner no. 1 is being described as properties belonging to the respondent no. 1. At the board meeting held on 5th March, 2012 and 10th April, 2012 certain resolutions were taken for deposit of cheques received in the name of the institute to the account of the respondent no. 1 and cheques drawn in the name of the petitioner's institute have been credited to the account of the respondent no. 1, as a result whereof the bank balance of the petitioner's institute has been depleted to negligible sums. Hence this application has been filed for interim relief.
No notice of this application has been served on the respondents as the petitioner apprehends steps being taken prejudicial to its interest.
Having considered the facts of the case as the respondent is running an institute describing itself as a unit of the petitioner's institute, the said representation to the public at large is not only incorrect but also misleading. In fact the respondent no. 1 is treating the properties of the petitioner's institute as its own properties. The respondent no. 1 is also a registered trust having its office at 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata which is the institute's premises and therefore the respondent no. 1 cannot have any right in the said premises prima facie. Accordingly, there will be an 3 order in terms of prayer (c) of the notice of motion. As sums received by the petitioner's institute is being deposited in the account of the respondent no. 1, there will also be an order in terms of prayer (d) of the Notice of Motion till 2nd August, 2013. Matter to appear in the list on 1st August, 2013.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(PATHERYA, J.) TR/