Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kuldeep Chand Maria vs Union Of India And Others on 2 May, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 4788 of 2015 a/w 4880, 4881,
.
4883, 4889, 4891 to 4893 of 2015, 6, 7,
19 to 21, 28, 29, 66, 120 to 122, 207,
209 to 214, 216, 219 to 221, 226 to
228, 582, 584, 585, 693, 695 to 697 &
1119 of 2016
Decided on: 02.05.2016
of
1. CWP No. 4788 of 2015
Dr. Kuldeep Chand Maria
rt ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
2. CWP No. 4880 of 2015
Dr. Ashneel Kumar Makkar ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
3. CWP No. 4881 of 2015
Dr. Kishore Kumar Jain ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
4. CWP No. 4883 of 2015
Dr. Vijay Chaudhary ...Petitioner.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
2
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
.
5. CWP No. 4889 of 2015
Dr. Surinder Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
of
6. CWP No. 4891 of 2015
Dr. Narinder Singh ...Petitioner.
rt Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
7. CWP No. 4892 of 2015
Dr. Bal Krishan Phawa ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
8. CWP No. 4893 of 2015
Dr. Vishal Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
9. CWP No. 6 of 2016
Dr. Kailash Parashar ...Petitioner.
Versus
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
3
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
10. CWP No. 7 of 2016
.
Dr. Karan Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
of
11. CWP No. 19 of 2016
Dr. Nalin Kishore ...Petitioner.
rt Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
12. CWP No. 20 of 2016
Dr. Ashok Kumar Sood ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
13. CWP No. 21 of 2016
Dr. Nalli Prabhudas ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
14. CWP No. 28 of 2016
Dr. Bhajender Singh Mehta ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
4
.........................................................................................................
15. CWP No. 29 of 2016
Dr. Satya Pal Khera ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
16. CWP No. 66 of 2016
of
Dr. Rajive Rai ...Petitioner.
Versus
rt
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
17. CWP No. 120 of 2016
Dr. Suresh Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
18. CWP No. 121 of 2016
Dr. Kalpana Virmani ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
19. CWP No. 122 of 2016
Dr. Inderjeet Singh Panwar ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
5
20. CWP No. 207 of 2016
Dr. Shashi Paul Sood ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
21. CWP No. 209 of 2016
Dr. Prem Lata Nanda ...Petitioner.
of
Versus
Union of India and others
rt ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
22. CWP No. 210 of 2016
Dr. Narinder Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
23. CWP No. 211 of 2016
Dr. Raman Kumar ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
24. CWP No. 212 of 2016
Dr. Roohail Sharma ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
6
25. CWP No. 213 of 2016
Dr. Ajit Paul Jain ...Petitioner.
.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
26. CWP No. 214 of 2016
Dr. Vijay Kumar Vohra ...Petitioner.
of
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
rt
27. CWP No. 216 of 2016
Dr. Bimla Bhardwaj ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
28. CWP No. 219 of 2016
Dr. Rajinder Kumar Mangla ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
29. CWP No. 220 of 2016
Dr. Peter Desouza ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
7
30. CWP No. 221 of 2016
Dr. Pratibha Sud ...Petitioner.
Versus
.
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
31. CWP No. 226 of 2016
Dr. Bhupinder Singh Bhatoe ...Petitioner.
Versus
of
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
Dr. Rajiv Kundu
rt
32. CWP No. 227 of 2016
...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
33. CWP No. 228 of 2016
Dr. Vijendra Nath Upadhyay ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
34. CWP No. 582 of 2016
Dr. Abhishek Singh Thakur ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
35. CWP No. 584 of 2016
Dr. Dharam Singh Rawat ...Petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
8
Versus
.
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
36. CWP No. 585 of 2016
Dr. Hari Shankar ...Petitioner.
Versus
of
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
37. CWP No. 693 of 2016
rt
Dr. J.C. Kaviraj ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
38. CWP No. 695 of 2016
Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Khanna ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
39. CWP No. 696 of 2016
Dr. Naresh Kumar Glodha ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.........................................................................................................
40. CWP No. 697 of 2016
Dr. Satpal Bhangal ...Petitioner.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
9
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
.
.........................................................................................................
41. CWP No. 1119 of 2016
Dr. Sheila Grace Varghese ...Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents.
of
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor
General of India, with Mr. Ajay
Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
Union of India.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate
General, with Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr.
Romesh Verma & Mr. M.A. Khan,
Additional Advocate Generals, for
respondentsState.
Mr. Bipin C. Negi, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Raj Negi, Advocate, for
respondentMedical Council of India.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP
10
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. (Oral)
Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor .
General of India, filed reply in the open Court in the lead case being CWP No. 4788 of 2015 and stated at the Bar that the reply filed in the lead case be treated as reply in all the writ of petitions. His statement is taken on record. Ordered accordingly.
2. rt Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), stated at the Bar that the exercise made by the authorities and the orders made by them were in terms of the directions made by a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court, which action was subject matter of subsequent writ petitions, being WP (C) No. 6968 of 2011, titled as Indian Radiological and Imaging Association (IRIA) versus Union of India and Anr. and other connected matters, came to be determined by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in terms of judgment, dated 17 th February, 2016. Further stated that the judgment, dated 17th February, 2016, made by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court squarely applies to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP 11 the cases in hand and the orders passed by the authorities merit to be quashed. Her statement is taken on record. She .
has also made available copy of the judgment made by the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 6968 of 2011 and other connected matters across the Board, made part of the file.
of
3. We have gone through the judgment made by the Delhi High Court in batch of writ petitions, lead case of rt which is WP (C) No. 6968 of 2011 and perused all the writ petitions. The issue involved and the dispute raised before the Delhi High Court is identical to the issue involved in these writ petitions. We are also of the same view, as has been taken by the Delhi High Court in the judgment (supra).
4. It is apt to record herein that the Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Neon Laboratories Limited versus Medical Technologies Limited and others, reported in (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 672, has directed that every High Court must give due deference ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP 12 to the law laid down by other High Courts. It is profitable to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein:
.
"7. The primary argument of the DefendantAppellant is that it had received registration for its trademark ROFOL in Class V on 14.9.2001 relating back to the date of its application viz. 19.10.1992. It contends that the circumstances as on the date of of its application are relevant, and on that date, the PlaintiffRespondents were not entities on the market. However, rt the DefendantAppellant has conceded that it commenced user of the trademark ROFOL only from 16.10.2004 onwards. Furthermore, it is important to note that litigation was initiated by PlaintiffRespondents, not DefendantAppellant, even though the latter could have raised issue to PlaintiffRespondents using a similar mark to the one for which it had filed an application for registration as early as in 1992. The Defendant Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012.
We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction.
However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants are the same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably erupt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP 13 since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order. Anarchy would .
be loosed on the Indian Court system.
Since the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more.
The PlaintiffRespondents filed an appeal against the Order dated 31.3.2012 and the Division Bench has, of by its Order dated 30.4.2012, stayed its operation."
(Emphasis added)
5. In view of the above, all these writ petitions are rt to be disposed of in view of the judgment made by the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 6968 of 2011 and other connected matters and the action drawn by the authorities including conducting of examination is to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. The judgment (supra) shall form part of this judgment also. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge May 2, 2016 ( rajni ) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:14:24 :::HCHP