Karnataka High Court
Quikr India Private Limited vs Mr Bhushan Jangle on 14 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 352
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.54196 OF 2018 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
QUIKR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,1956 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.106
RACHANHAELLI VILLAGE
167, SRK NAGAR POST
KRISHNARAJURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 045
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. SAVIO ALOSIOUS
... PETITIONER
(By Mr.ADITYA SONDHI SENIOR ADV.
AND SRI.ARJUN RAO, ADV.)
AND:
1. MR. BHUSHAN JANGLE
S/O MR ARUN JANGLE,
AGED 25 YEARS
NO.1203, ALICE COTTAGE
26TH CROSS, HBR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560 043
ALSO AT A1-602, NEW MHADA
SWADESHI MILL ROAD
SION CHUNABHATTI
MUMBAI-400 022.
2. OLX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR
2
TOWER NO.3A, DLF CORPORATE PARK
DLF CITY, PHASE-III, M.G. ROAD
GURGAON-122 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. MR. MAYUR SWAMY
S/O SIDHARAMAYYA SHADAXARI SWAMY
AGED 31 YEARS
FLAT NO.303 "A" WING
LODHA CASA ESSENZA
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY
OPPOSITE CENTRAL MALL AND BIG
BAZAAR, MIRAROAD (EAST)
MUMBAI-401 107.
4. MR. SHUBHAM DEEPAK KARNEWAR
AGED MAJOR
PUNJABI SOCIETY, FLAT NO.22
AZAD NAGAR
ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI-400 013.
5. MR. ZUHEB KHAN
AGED MAJOR
NO.23, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS
DINNUR, NEAR SHALIMAR AVENUE
R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.
6. MR. PRATIK SHANKAR
AGED MAJOR
SHASTRY NAGAR KAJU PADA PIPELINE
KURLA WEST, MUMBAI-400 072.
ALSO AT:NO.885, BONNE MILL
CHIKKABANAVARA
OPPOSITE SAPTHAGIRI COLLEGE
BENGALURU-560 090.
7. MR. RATTANDEEP GULATI
S/O JAGDISH CHANDER GULATI
AGED 37 YEARS
NO.902D, ANTARITCA, LODHA AQUA
WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY
OPPOSITE CENTRAL MALLA AND
BIG BAZAAR
MIRA ROAD (EAST), MUMBAI-401 107.
3
8. MR. DEEPAK DHAMIJA
S/O SHYAM LAL
AGED MAJOR
AT 45/15, ASHOK NAGAR
NEW DELHI-110 018.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Mr.S.S.NAGANAND SR. ADV.
AND MR.CHINTAN CHINAPPA ADV. FOR C/R2)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-10) AT BENGALURU DATED
19.09.2018 IN O.S.NO.6782/2018 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.I/2018 AT ANNEX-A ISSUING EMERGENT NOTICE
THEREON AND REFUSING TO GRNT AN ORDER OF EXPARTE
AND INTERIM TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO ALLOW THE SAID I.A.NO.1/2018 FILED BY THE
APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr.Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Naganand, learned Senior counsel for the caveator/respondent No.2.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. 4
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court by which it has refused to grant an exparte order of injunction.
4. Facts giving rise to the filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking the relief of permanent as well as mandatory injunction with regard to infringement of his copyrighted information on or about 17.09.2018. Along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) was filed seeking exparte injunction. The Trial Court by an order dated 19.09.2018 directed issuance of emergent notice to defendant in the suit and fixed the proceeding in the suit on 23.10.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner initially first preferred Miscellaneous First Appeal viz., MFA No. 7761/2018.
5
5. A Bench of this court granted ad-interim order on 11.10.2018. However, by an order dated 20.11.2018, the aforesaid appeal was held to be not maintainable and was directed to be converted into a Writ Petition. Thereupon, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was registered as a Writ Petition.
6. When a query was put to learned Senior counsel for the parties with regard to the stage of the proceeding in the civil suit, learned Senior counsel for the parties submitted that the defendants in the suit have been served and the proceeding in the suit is fixed for consideration of application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code for grant of injunction, on 24.01.2019.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 are employees of the petitioner and a Bench of this Court by an ad- interim order while entertaining the Miscellaneous First Appeal had granted an ad-interim order of injunction on 6 11.10.2018 and the aforesaid order remained in force till disposal of the appeal i.e., till 20.11.2018, therefore, the ad-interim order be continued against respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8 and the Trial Court be directed to consider with regard to grant of injunction as against respondent No.2 on the next date of hearing. On the other hand, Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 has filed its objection to the application for grant of injunction and is ready to argue the matter. However, it is submitted that since the ad-interim order granted by this Court on 11.10.2018 is no longer in operation, therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be revived, in the absence of respondent Nos.1, 3 to 8.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the defendants in the suit viz., the respondents to this proceeding have been served with the notice of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 7 and 2 of the Code and the proceeding in the suit are fixed for 24.01.2019. The ad-interim order is not in force since 20.11.2018 i.e., for past about more than a month. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Trial Court to hear the arguments on the application for grant of injunction positively on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court and to decide the same within a period of three days therefrom. In addition, the petitioner is also granted the liberty to file an application seeking preponement of date of hearing before the Trial Court. Needless to state that in case such an application is filed, the Trial Court after giving notice to the parties with regard to the date of hearing shall proceed to decide the application expeditiously before 24.01.2019. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS