Madras High Court
Dwaraka Industries vs Adithya Aromatics on 26 June, 2012
Author: V.Periya Karuppiah
Bench: V.Periya Karuppiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.06.2012 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH O.A.Nos.167 to 172 of 2011 and A.No.1078 of 2011 in C.S.No.125 of 2011 DWARAKA INDUSTRIES vs. ADITHYA AROMATICS ORDER :
V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J., O.A.No.167 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs Trade Mark SURYA by using the offending Trade Mark SURYA or any other Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark and trade mark label SURYA.
2. O.A.No.168 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off the goods of the respondents/defendants, as that of the plaintiffs by using the offending trade mark SURYA as and for the trade mark of the first plaintiff SURYA or any other trade mark label/device which is similar/deceptively similar to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark SURYA.
3. O.A.No.169 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs copyright over the artistic work in the trade mark label SURYA by using the offending trade mark label SURYA or any other trade mark label which is identical or colourable reproduction of the first plaintiffs artistic work in the trade mark label SURYA.
4. O.A.No.170 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs Trade Mark RANGEELA by using the offending Trade Mark RANGEELA or any other Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark and trade mark label RANGEELA.
5. O.A.No.171 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off the goods of the respondents/defendants, as that of the first plaintiffs by using the offending trade mark RANGEELA as for the trade mark of the first plaintiff RANGEELA or any other trade mark label/device which is similar/deceptively similar to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark RANGEELA.
6. O.A.No.172 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to grant interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs copyright over the artistic work in the trade mark label RANGEELA by using the offending trade mark label RANGEELA or any other trade mark label which is identical or colourable reproduction of the first plaintiffs artistic work in the trade mark label RANGEELA.
7. A.No.1078 of 2011: This application has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs to permit the applicants/plaintiffs to appoint an Advocate Commissioner with directions to go to the premises of the respondents/defendants at New No.33, Old No.26/2, 2nd floor, Naval Hospital Road, Periamet, Chennai-3 or other places as might be pointed out by the applicants/plaintiffs, take inventory of the infringing goods with the offending trade mark, documents and other evidences.
8. Heard Mr.A.Prabhakara Reddy learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.APR Associates for the applicants/plaintiffs and Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants.
9. The learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs would submit in his argument that the 1st plaintiff is a partnership firm to which the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the partners who is indulging in the business of manufacturing and marketing of Agarbathies, incense sticks and etc and the related products. He would also submit that the 1st plaintiff is exporting the said products to various countries including Srilanka and Gulf countries. Originally the partnership was constituted with the 3rd defendant as a working partner and the entire capital of the firm was contributed by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and a partnership deed was executed on 31.05.2007. He would further submit that the 2nd plaintiff was looking after the management of the partnership firm and the 3rd defendant was taking care of the manufacture of the said products as working partner. He would further submit that during the Course of the said business, the 1st plaintiff had adopted several trademarks which included SURYA, RANGEELA, MADURA, JAYAM, MUSIC, KRISHNALEELA etc and they have applied for necessary registration of trademarks. He would also submit that the 1st plaintiff firm had maintained reputation on their products and therefore, there was an extensive sales promotions and tireless efforts made their products enjoy high demand in the market. He would further submit that two of their trademarks adopted by the 1st plaintiff namely SURYA and RANGEELA have received high acceptance among the trade and public and enjoys very good market in Srilanka and other countries. He would further submit that the carton for packing the products under the trademark of SURYA and RANGEELA were designed and were used by the 1st plaintiff and the trademarks SURYA and RANGEELA are unique in its concept, creation and adoption. He would further submit that the said trademark and the artistic works in the trademark labels has come exclusively belonging to the 1st plaintiff firm and enjoying great demand in various countries including Sri Lanka and Gulf countries.
10. He would further submit that during the course of the partnership business, the 2nd defendant had siphoned of the 1st applicants money by fraudulently purchasing raw materials, not useful for production, at high cost and thereby got huge commissions. He would also submit that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 called upon the 3rd defendant to retire from the partnership with the closing of business on 31.03.2010 and agreed to settle the accounts accordingly. The 3rd defendant had actually over drawn high amounts while he was a partner and the same was found with the accounts of the firm as on 31.03.2010, taken during the month of October 2010. He would also submit that the said account is yet to be settled and if it is done the 3rd defendant alone has to pay to the 1st plaintiff firm. He would further submit that after retiring from the firm, the 3rd defendant started carrying on similar business along with the 4th defendant and floated the defendants 1 and 2 firms in the business of manufacturing the incense sticks and agarbathis. He would further submit that the defendant has adopted the identical cartons of the 1st plaintiff trademark SURYA and RANGEELA and he used for his business. He would further submit that on a cursory look of the cartons would show that the defendant have verbatim adopted the artistic work and trademark of the plaintiff's trademark SURYA and RANGEELA except for the device of the lotus in Dwaraka in round shape and substituted Adithya. He would also submit that the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA with artistic work with intellectual in which the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are continuing as partners.
11. He would further submit that the defendants who are not entitled to adopt the usage of the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA and the artistic work in respect of the cartons with the names would infringe the trademark of the plaintiffs as well as the copy right over the artistic work in the labels containing the trademark on the cartons. He would further submit in his argument that if the defendants are permitted to use such trademark with similar artistic work and colour get up, the unwary public would think over the said products of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs. He would further submit that the 1st plaintiff's firm had admittedly used the trademarks SURYA and RANGEELA and had used the cartons to which the 3rd defendant cannot use the said trademark as well as the artistic work invented and designed by the 1st plaintiff, after his retirement from the partnership firm. He would further submit that the 4th defendant is a 3rd party, after establishing the 1st defendant concern and had also used the said trademark which is sheerly illegal.
12. He would therefore, submit in his argument that the use of trademark belonging to the 1st plaintiff firm namely SURYA and RANGEELA should not be used by the defendants and similar artistic work containing the names of SURYA and RANGEELA shall not also be used in the same colour get up in the labels used over the cartons, otherwise, the plaintiffs would be put to irreparable loss since the unwary public would buy the incense sticks in the cartons similar like that of the plaintiffs thinking as the plaintiff's product and thereby the plaintiffs reputation would be stolen by the fraudulent act of the defendants. He would therefore request the Court that an order of temporary injunction may be passed in respect of the usage of the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA or other trademarks which are identical and are representing the 1st plaintiff's artistic work in the trademark label RANGEELA pending disposal of the suit. He would also submit that a temporary injunction may also granted against the defendants in any manner passing off all the products of the defendants as that the plaintiffs' by using the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA or any other trademark with deceptively similar to that of the 1st plaintiff's trademark SURYA and RANGEELA. He would also seek for the appointment of the Commissioner for seizing of the cartons and other labels in which the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA have been produced with the colour get up and artistic work similar to that of the plaintiff and to destroy them after obtaining permission from the Court and for that a Commissioner may be appointed. He would therefore request the Court to pass orders in all the applications. He would also cite a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (3) MLJ 543 for the principle that the trademarks used by the partnership firm could not be used by the retired partner after his retirements from the partnership firm and is the only remedy is to account for the value of trademark of the firm. Therefore, he would request the Court to dis-allow the objections raised in the counter filed by the defendants and to order applications.
13. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit in her argument that the 3rd defendant did not retire from the partnership firm even though the allegation made in the plaint as well as the affidavit of the plaintiff that the 3rd defendant had retired from the partnership firm. He would further submit that the alleged letter written by the 3rd defendant on 04.03.2001 would not mean that he retired from partnership firm and he has insisted that the right under the partnership firm and the benefits accrued to the 3rd defendant under the partnership are yet to be settled and he being the joint owner of the trademark and he can use the said trademark till the account is settled.
14. She would also submit that the entire reading of the said letter would go to show that the 3rd defendant did not retire from the partnership firm and therefore, the trademark namely SURYA and RANGEELA are belonging to the 3rd defendant also. She would further submit in her argument that no notice of retirement from the partnership firm has been given to him and his rights under the deed of partnership dated 31.05.2007 is yet to be settled. She would also submit that the defendants 1 and 2 are the proprietorship concerns being owned by the defendants 3 and 4 respectively and they are entitled to proceed with the usage of the trademark namely SURYA and RANGEELA till the account is settled in respect of the 3rd defendant. She would further submit that the said trademarks were applied by the partnership firm when the 3rd defendant was also one of the partners and therefore, the 3rd defendant is having a right over the trademark as they are also the proprietors of the firm. She would further submit that the trademarks SURYA and RANGEELA got popularity and the goodwill earned towards the name were purely due to the hard work of the 3rd defendant and his marketing efforts and therefore, the said intellectual property earned through SURYA and RANGEELA is also belonging to the 3rd defendant. He would also submit that the 3rd defendant was entitled to the profit of 40% from and out of the partnership firm and the said profit was not paid to the 3rd defendant. She would also submit that the Police complaint said to have been given by the plaintiff before Vepery Police Station is a false one and in order to avoid the settlement of accounts to the 3rd defendant in the partnership firm, he has given a complaint against the 3rd defendant with ulterior motive. He would further submit that the 3rd defendant being the owner of the trademarks and the said other artistic works used by the plaintiffs and therefore no interim injunction and temporary injunction can be granted against the 3rd defendant from using the said trademark till his account is settled. She would therefore, submit in her argument that the applications have been filed by the plaintiffs in order to clip the feathers of the defendants from doing their business and therefore, all the applications deserves no consideration and therefore, they may be dismissed.
15. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
16. The applicants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs.
a. for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiff's trade mark "SURYA" by using the offending Trade Mark "SURYA" or any other Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation to that of the first plaintiff's trademark and Trademark Label "SURYA".
b. for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off the goods of the respondents/defendants, as that of the plaintiffs by using the offending trade mark SURYA as and for the trade mark of the first plaintiff SURYA or any other trade mark label/device which is similar/deceptively similar to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark SURYA.
c. for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs copyright over the artistic work in the trade mark label SURYA by using the offending trade mark label SURYA or any other trade mark label which is identical or colourable reproduction of the first plaintiffs artistic work in the trade mark label SURYA.
d. for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs Trade Mark RANGEELA by using the offending Trade Mark RANGEELA or any other Trade Mark or device which is identical or deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark and trade mark label RANGEELA.
e. for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner passing off the goods of the respondents/defendants, as that of the first plaintiffs by using the offending trade mark RANGEELA as for the trade mark of the first plaintiff RANGEELA or any other trade mark label/device which is similar/deceptively similar to that of the first plaintiffs trade mark RANGEELA.
f. for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, servants or any one claiming through them from in any manner infringing the first plaintiffs copyright over the artistic work in the trade mark label RANGEELA by using the offending trade mark label RANGEELA or any other trade mark label which is identical or colourable reproduction of the first plaintiffs artistic work in the trade mark label RANGEELA.
g. Directing the defendants to surrender to the Plaintiffs the entire stocks, cartons with the infringing artistic work "SURYA" and "RANGEELA" and unused infringing Trademark labels "SURYA" and RANGEELA" together with blocks and dies for destruction.
h. Directing the defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of the profits earned by them through the sale of their products bearing the infringing labels "SURYA" and RANGEELA" which are similar or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' Trademarks and the respective copyrighted labels "SURYA" and "RANGEELA" and directing the payment of such profits to the plaintiffs;
i. Directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.
17. The plaintiffs as applicants have come forward with these applications seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the plaintiffs as applicants have asked for temporary injunction against the defendants 1 to 4 restraining them from using the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA for the business of manufacturing Agarbathi and incense sticks and etc, since those trade names were used by the 1st plaintiff's partnership firm in the past as well as during the present time. The further reasons put forth by the plaintiffs would be that the 3rd defendant was once a partner to the 1st plaintiff and due to some disputes in between partners namely plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the 3rd defendant a complaint was given to the Vepery Police Station and the case was registered and the investigation was pending and in the meantime, the 3rd defendant retired from the partnership firm and the accounts are yet to be settled. For that, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would rely upon a letter written by the 3rd defendant on 04.03.2011 to the plaintiff. The said letter is produced in page No.1 of the additional typed set filed by the plaintiff. Relying upon the said document, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would insist his argument that the retiring partner cannot have any right over the trademark which was already held by the partnership firm.
18. The contention of the respondents/defendants would be that no accounts have been settled in between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant and therefore, the 3rd defendant is entitled to use the trademark of the 1st plaintiff firm and the plaintiff cannot question the proprietary right of the 3rd defendant using the plaintiffs' cartons with label and colour scheme with the trademark in the course of his business. The temporary injunction as sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants is not only for infringing the trademark name but also for using the label containing trademark name, namely SURYA and RANGEELA with colour get up and the artistic design invented and used by the 1st plaintiff firm and also for temporary injunction restraining from passing off the case of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs' product. The said usage of the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA and the cartons using the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA with similar colour get up except LOTUS, ROUND etc.
19. The further arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondent was that even the good will and the trademark of the partnership firm are the properties of the partners, unless and until the settlement is reached over the accounts in the partnership firm, and the said rights continue till it is settled.
20. On the basis of such right, the 3rd defendant was using the marks as he was also a partner of the 1st plaintiff firm along with the plaintiffs 2 and 3, the 3rd defendant is said to have used the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA for the purpose of manufacturing Agarbathis and incense sticks and others. The colour get up in the cartons using the label with the trademark name was also said to have been used and the reason stated by the respondent/3rd defendant was that he was still the owner of those trademarks. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant that the 3rd defendant is still a co-owner in respect of the trademark and the partnership. Therefore, it is quite clear that the 3rd defendant is using the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA to which the 1st plaintiff firm was having its use after the 3rd defendant had left the partnership firm. It is an admitted fact that the 3rd defendant was one of the partner prior to 31.03.2010 and the accounts are yet to be settled. A letter written by the 3rd defendant to the 1st plaintiff on 04.03.2011 has been produced in page No.1 of the additional typed set of the plaintiffs. The contents of the letter would go to show that the 3rd defendant had retired from the partnership firm from the accounting year ending with 31.03.2010. For the better appreciation of the contentions of both sides, the contents of the said letter has to be extracted as follows:-
"Date: 04.03.2011 From Mr.N.Ramalingam NEW NO.33, OLD NO.26/2, NAVAL HOSPITAL ROAD, PERIAMET, CHENNAI-600 003.
To M/s.DWARAKA INDUSTRIES OLD NO.100, NEW NO.158, FIRST FLOOR, CORAL MERCHANT STREET, CHENNAI-600 001.
I am in receipt of your letter dated 14.02.2011 communicating my termination from partnership with effect from the closing of the business hours on 31.03.2010. With regard to the same I wish to inform you that the statement made by you that I retired from the partnership after settling and receiving the amounts payable to me is not true. Though I retires from the partnership with effect from closing of the business hours on 31.03.2010 my rights under the partnership and the benefits accrued to me under the partnership were not settled and the terms of retirement were not finalised. I state that as a partner of the firm I am a joint owner and entitled to the trade marks used by the firm during my tenure. I state that I am not prepared to forgo my rights over the trade marks used by the firm in which I am also holding undivided equal rights. Negotiations are being held and the terms of settlement including the trade marks rights were not finalised. It was only in such circumstances I have not executed my formal letter of retirement from Partnership since the deed of retirement also not been finalised. Therefore it is not correct to state that my accounts were settled. Hence you are hereby requested to take stock of the assets and liabilities as on 31.03.2010 and finalise the terms and conditions of the retirement and pay the amounts to me.
Yours faithfully, (N.RAMALINGAM)"
21. In the said letter, the 3rd defendant had categorically stated that he has retired from the partnership firm from the accounting year ending with 31.03.2010, but however, the accounts are yet to be settled with a right over the trademarks of the plaintiff firm. Therefore, I could see that the 3rd defendant had left the partnership firm and the accounting in respect of income from the properties were decided in between parties. The 3rd defendant is not working now, for the 1st plaintiff firm by using his skills by manufacturing the incense sticks and agarbathies. Further more, it has also been not disputed that the 3rd defendant had left the 1st plaintiff's firm a new firm has been reconstituted and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are continuing as partners of the 1st plaintiff's firm. Therefore, it is very much understood that the 3rd defendant left the partnership firm, by his retirement and the accounts are yet to be settled in between the plaintiffs firm and the 3rd defendant. It is also admitted fact that the 3rd defendant after coming out from the 1st plaintiff firm had started the 2nd defendant proprietorship concern in his name and 1st defendant concern in the name of his wife, the 4th defendant. The said allegations of the plaintiff that the 1st defendant concern and the 4th defendant have also indulged in infringing the trademarks SURYA and RANGEELA which is belonging to the plaintiffs firm which was not disputed by the defendants 3 and 4. Even if the 3rd defendant as the former partner of the 1st plaintiff who is deemed to have been entitled to use the trademarks of the erstwhile partnership firm, how the 4th defendant and her concern the 1st defendant are entitled to use the trademarks SURYA and RANGEELA is the question. The explanation offered by the defendant's counsel that the 3rd defendant had given licence to the 4th defendant to use the said trademark will not hold water for the following reasons.
22. The judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (3) MLJ 543 (S.V.S.Oil Mills v. S.V.N.Agro-refineries), on the side of the plaintiffs would be a clear answer for settling the disputes. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had elaborately discussed the facts and circumstances of the said case and decided the rights of an out going partner in a partnership firm. The relevant passage would run as follows:-
"12. ........ It is true that even after a partner retires from a firm, he will be entitled to the share of profits of the firm till be entitled to the share of profits of the firm till the accounts are finally settled between the outgoing partner and other partners, if the assets of the firm in which he had a share are used by the continuing partners. It is not the case of the second defendant that he has not retired from the firm and if he has any interest in the trademark SVS, it is for him to work out his remedy for accounting if other partners continue to exploit the trademark SVS. Further, we are of the view that in the present proceeding the question whether the second defendant is entitled to use the trademark SVS does not arise, as the said issue has already been concluded against the second defendant and the second defendant, as a matter of fact, has started using the trademark SVN and the plaintiff in the present proceedings has not questioned the use of the trademark or trade name SVN."
23. In the said judgment, it has been candidly said that the partner retired from the partnership firm is having the rights which has to be settled through settlement of accounts. The right over the property and the outstanding could be decided while the accounts are settled in between parties. Similarly the usage of trademark of the partnership firm has also to be worked out in the accounting.
24. No doubt, the said trademarks SURYA and RANGEELA were used by the 1st plaintiff firm when the 3rd defendant was a partner with the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and it is being continuously used by the 1st plaintiff firm after 3rd the defendant left the partnership firm. Therefore, the said usage of trademarks by the 1st plaintiff firm is continuing. The right as claimed by the 3rd defendant to use the trademark cannot be upheld because it is a matter to be decided only in the accounting and not by a parallel use of the trademarks of the partnership firm by an erstwhile partner. The tenor of the judgment of this Court as discussed supra was only to the effect that the right in the trademark has to be settled in an accounting in between the partners. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the claim of the 3rd defendant to use the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA as well as to the use of the artistic work with the trademark in a label over the cartons by the 3rd defendant cannot be accepted as of right. The only remedy available to 3rd defendant is to go for accounting in an appropriate proceedings. When the 3rd defendant has no right to use the trademark of the 1st plaintiff firm, he cannot be given right to use such trademark by the 1st defendant concern belonging to the 4th defendant.
25. Therefore, I could see a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs/applicants for the grant of relief of temporary injunction which is prohibitory in nature and if for any reason, the plaintiffs are not granted with temporary injunction certainly the defendants would indulge in using the trademark SURYA and RANGEELA and also artistic work in the label with the trademark name in the same colour get up and for being used in cartons. The labels of the cartons used by the plaintiff in the name of SURYA and RANGEELA are produced in page Nos.77 to 84 of the typed set and the corresponding labels of the cartons used by the defendants are produced in pages No.85 to 92 of the typed set. There could be no visual different except very small pages which cannot be identified by an unwary purchaser with a common intelligence. If, the prayer of the plaintiffs for the grant of temporary injunction in respect of the trade names SURYA and RANGEELA and are if not granted certainly an unwary purchaser will be thinking of purchasing the plaintiffs' product, would purchase the products of the defendants. Therefore, the defendants would be committing guilty passing off the products of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs. In the event of no injunction is granted, the loss likely to be caused to the plaintiff which may not be measured and it would be an irreparable and immeasurable loss. Therefore, the preventive remedy of temporary injunction is necessarily to be granted in favour of the plaintiffs since the balance of convenience is found only in favour of the applicants/plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the applications filed by the applicants/plaintiffs seeking for temporary injunction are deserved to be ordered.
26. As regards the appointment of the Commissioner to seize all the cartons and the products put inside the cartons so as to avoid the loss caused to the applicant from the premises of the defendant. I could see that there is no need for appointment of Commissioner if an order directing the defendants to stop the usage of such cartons or to surrender all the cartons bearing the names of SURYA and RANGEELA in the get up as produced in page Nos.85 to 92 of the typed set. Therefore, I am inclined to grant one month's time for surrendering all the cartons by the defendants with the particulars of quantity, into Court, from the date of a receipt of copy of this order. In the event of failure to surrender those cartons containing the trade names 'SURYA' and 'RANGEELA' with the colour get up as mentioned in page Nos.85 to 92 of the typed set, this Court will pass necessary orders to appoint a Commissioner immediately without notice to the defendants, for the purposes mentioned in the said application.
27. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the applications in O.A.Nos.167 to 172 of 2011 are allowed and temporary injunction is granted as sought for by the applicants/plaintiffs.
28. With the aforesaid observation, the application in A.No.1078 of 2011 for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is closed.
26.06.2012 Index: Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ssn V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J., ssn Pre-delivery order made in O.A.Nos.167 to 172 of 2011 and A.No.1078 of 2011 in C.S.No.125 of 2011 26.06.2012