Delhi High Court - Orders
Atcom Technology Co. Ltd vs Rahul Gupta & Ors & Ors on 6 September, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M)-IPD 17/2022 & CM APPL. 35609/2022
ATCOM TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Chandra Mishra, Ms.
Janhvi Chadha, Mr. Anuraj Tirthankar
& Ms. Atiga Singh, Advocates (M-
9205066701)
versus
RAHUL GUPTA & ORS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Rajeshwari, H., Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 06.09.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 4th July, 2022 passed by the ld. District Judge East/Karkardooma District Courts (hereinafter "Commercial Court") in CS(COMM) 179/2020 titled Atcom Technology Co. Ltd. v. Rahul Gupta & Ors. Vide the said order, the Commercial Court allowed an application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC, filed by the Defendants-Respondents (hereinafter "Defendants"), subject to a cost of INR 7000 rupees. The case of the Plaintiff-Petitioner (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is that the application could not have been allowed by the Commercial Court, as it is contrary to Rule 14 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter "Original Side Rules"), which states that parties cannot file documents after completion of pleadings in a suit, except as provided in Order XIII of the CPC or the Original Side Rules.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:07.09.2022 16:11:433. The question that has thus arisen in this petition, is whether the Original Side Rules would apply to the Commercial Courts functioning in the various districts of Delhi. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff has relied upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s OK Play India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s A.P. Distributors & Anr. [CM(M) 346/2020, decision dated 25th October, 2021], to argue that this issue is no longer res integra and the ld. Single Judge has held that the Original Side Rules would apply to Commercial Courts. In the said judgement the Ld. Single Judge has relied upon certain Practice Directions issued by the Delhi High Court.
4. Ms. Rajeshwari, ld. Counsel for the Defendants, opposes this submission and submits that Rule 3 of the Original Side Rules is clear that the said Rules only apply to the Original Side of the Delhi High Court and not to the Commercial Courts at the district level. She also relies upon the Practice Directions annexed as Annexure E, issued along with the Original Side Rules, and Section 18 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to establish that the Practice Directions only supplement the law when CPC/Commercial Courts Act/Original Side Rules are already applicable. They cannot be used to apply the Original Side Rules to a Court.
5. At this stage, it is also brought to the attention of the Court that the Defendants have filed a cancellation petition seeking cancellation of the Plaintiff's mark before this Court. The suit CS(COMM) 179/2020, in which the impugned order has been passed and which was pending before the Commercial Court in Karkardooma, is also now sought to be transferred to the the High Court, by way of T.R.P. (C.) 61/2022, stated to be listed before the ld. Joint Registrar on 7th September, 2022.
6. Accordingly, let this petition be listed on 15th November, 2022, with Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:07.09.2022 16:11:43 the said cancellation petition being CO (COMM. IPD-TM) 188/2022 and the suit (numbered as CS (COMM.) 179/2020 in the Commercial Court, Karkardooma), sought to be transferred pursuant to T.R.P. (C.) 61/2022 filed before this Court. The legal issue that has arisen in this case would also be considered on the said date.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 Rahul/ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:07.09.2022 16:11:43