Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Luxembuorg Brands S.A.R.L. vs G.M. Pens International Pvt. Ltd. on 26 April, 2017
Bench: Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
1
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.2 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 36043/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29/11/2016
in FAO No. 135/2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
LUXEMBUORG BRANDS S.A.R.L. & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
G.M. PENS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and modification/clarification and
permission to file additional documents)
Date : 26/04/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s)
Mr.Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Prashant Gupta, Adv.
Ms.Taapsi Johri, Adv.
Mr.Kanish Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Abhinav Mukerji, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv.
Mr.Arun C. Mohan, Adv.
Ms.Rajeshwar H., Adv.
Ms.Aparna Gaur, Adv.
Mr.Gagan Gupta, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Having heard Mr.Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Arun C. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent.
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2017.05.02 15:14:42 IST Reason: In the course of hearing we have been apprised that the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in the original side has fixed the date for hearing of the injunction application 2 on 1st May, 2017 at 2.30 p.m. Be it noted when this ad-interim injunction was challenged before this Court on 16 th December, 2017 we had passed the following order:
“In course of hearing, we have been apprised that the respondent has stopped manufacturing the items in question. Be that as it may. We direct that there shall be no manufacturing as undertaken by the respondent. It shall be treated to be an order of the Court. As far as the retailers are concerned, they are permitted to sell. As far as the distributors are concerned, the respondent shall instruct them not to divert the stock to the retailers till the next date of hearing. Needless to say, the respondent shall call for the accounts from the retailers through the distributors to be produced before appropriate forum as directed.
List the matter on 16th January, 2017.” Thereafter, an application for clarification was filed and on 30th January, 2017 the following order was passed:
“It is submitted by Mr.P.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the basis of an affidavit filed by the respondent, that the respondent has no distributors. The sale is made on principal to principal basis. To elaborate, the respondent-company sells directly to the retailers which is treated as the principal. The said submission is seriously opposed by Mr.Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel appearing for the 3 petitioners. According to him, there are 39 distributors which are in the list and the respondent has time and again admitted the said persons to be the distributors.
Be that as it may, as advised at present, any transfer of stock that takes place after 16.12.2016 from the respondent are at liberty to publish the order dated 16.12.2016 as well as the present order and the purpose of it in widely published newspapers so that no retailer can take steps to violate the order passed by this Court, for that will be paving the dangerous path. Be it made clear, the order of restraint is confined to the goods which are the subject matter of injunction.” Regard being had to the nature of the controversy and the orders we have passed it is appropriate that the suit should be disposed of in entirety. Mr.Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, learned senior counsel being assisted by Mr.Prashant Gupta, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff may at the maximum require three witnesses to be examined. Therefore, we request the High Court to dispose of the main suit by the end of July, 2017. While disposing of the suit the High Court shall keep in mind the interim order(s) passed by this Court and the issues arising out of I.A.No.3 and 4 of 2017 that have been filed before this Court, that we have dealt with in part by passing certain interim orders. No prayer with regard to further injunction in any manner shall be entertained by the learned Single Judge. We repeat at the cost of repetition that we have requested for disposal of the suit within the stipulated 4 time as the controversy lies in a narrow compass and the parties have committed that they would only examine two to three witnesses each and not seek unnecessary adjournments. We further request the learned Chief Justice to allot the suit to the learned Single Judge who has been dealing with the same from its inception. If it has to go to a designated court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2016 the learned Chief Justice may do the needful in the matter. We have made such a request as the disposal of a case like the present nature should not be delayed.
With the above direction, the special leave petition is disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashok Raj Singh) (H.S.Parasher)
Court Master Court Master