Delhi High Court
Sanjeev Goel vs Neelkanth Polytech Pvt Ltd on 7 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 206/2014 & CM No. 12215/2014 (Stay)
SANJEEV GOEL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr M.L. Mangla, Mr Manish Singhal &
Mr Ankit Mangla, Advs.
versus
NEELKANTH POLYTECH PVT. LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Shailen Bhatia, Mr Amit Jain, Mrs
Priti & Mr Niraj Mishra, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 07.08.2015
1. This is an appeal directed against the order dated 31.05.2014, passed by the trial court, on an application moved by the appellant/ plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC. The injunction sought was, directed against the respondent/ defendant qua its registered mark METRO TECH. To be noted, the petitioner has a prior registration in the registered label- mark METRO GOLD COIN. The appellant claims to have used its label- mark since, 1997.
2. The appellant has filed a suit not only for infringement but also for passing off. The appellant's principal grievance is that the trial court rejected his prayer for injunction by only considering the provisions of Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
2.1 It is the submission of the appellant that, dehors the right in the FAO 206/2014 Page 1 of 3 registered label-mark, he can sustain the action based on his assertion of passing off; an assertion which the trial court has failed to consider.
3. The respondent/ defendant, on the other hand, seeks to argue that the impugned order is sustainable, based on observations made therein.
4. However, after some arguments, both counsels, are agreed, that best way forward would be that the proceedings in the suit are expedited by this court and the suit is tried without the trial court being burdened by the observations made, in the impugned order.
5. I may only note that I have been informed by the learned counsels for the parties that issues, have already been framed in the suit.
6. In these circumstances, while this court refrains from making any observation vis-a-vis the tenability of the impugned order, either on facts or in law, the following directions are issued for due expedition of the suit:
(i) The appellant/ plaintiff will file affidavit(s) of evidence of his witnesses within four (4) weeks from today, whereupon the appellant/ plaintiff will present his witnesses for cross-examination on a date to be given by the trial court.
(ii) Immediately, upon cross-examination of the appellant's/ plaintiff's witnesses, the respondent/ defendant will file affidavit(s) of evidence of its witnesses. Time-frame for that would not exceed a period of four (4) weeks from the date of completion of the cross-examination of the appellant's/ plaintiff's witnesses.
(iii) Upon cross-examination of the respondent's/defendant's witnesses, the trial court will proceed to hear the oral submissions in the matter. The endeavour of the trial court will be to conclude the matter on or before 31.03.2016.FAO 206/2014 Page 2 of 3
7. It is made clear, any observations made in the impugned order will not impact the final determination in the suit.
8. The appeal and the application are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
9. The registry will, immediately dispatch the record to the trial court.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AUGUST 07, 2015 kk FAO 206/2014 Page 3 of 3