Telangana High Court
M/S.Deccan Chronicle Holdings ... vs Deccan Chronicle Marketeers, on 7 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3476 of 2024
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commercial Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, "the Commercial Court") in I.A.No.72 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.45 of 2022, by which the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), has been rejected.
2
4. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 has filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from using the Trade Marks 'Deccan Chronicle' and 'Andhra Bhoomi'. The petitioners have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent No.1 is an unregistered partnership firm and therefore in view of the bar contained under Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), the suit at the instance of an unregistered partnership firm is not maintainable. A further objection to the maintainability of the suit was taken on the ground that the plaint has been filed by an unauthorised person.
5. The Commercial Court, by an order dated 03.04.2024, has rejected the aforesaid application and has held that the bar under Section 69(2) of the Act is not attracted to the fact situation of the case and the defect of authorisation is curable. Hence, this petition. 3
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing the matter to some extent, seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the civil revision petition with the liberty to the petitioners to raise the objection with regard to maintainability of the suit in the written statement which may be filed by the petitioners. However, this Court by an order passed today in C.R.P.No.3478 of 2024 has upheld the order dated 03.04.2024 by which an application filed by the petitioners to set aside order dated 12.04.2023 forfeiting the right to file written statement has been rejected. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accede to the aforesaid prayer.
7. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J 07.11.2024 vs