Kerala High Court
Intergrow Brands Pvt. Ltd vs Wipro Enterprises Private Limited on 10 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
Friday, the 10th day of May 2024 / 20th Vaisakha, 1946
FAO NO. 59 OF 2024
IA 4/2024 IN OS 12/2024 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
---
APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANT NO.1 AND 4/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 4:
1. INTERGROW BRANDS PVT. LTD., LEELA TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, DOOR NO.
53/2520, P.Q.R SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR AVENUE,
PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682019; REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR ASHOK MANI, PIN - 682019.
2. MR. ASHOK MANI, INTERGROW BRANDS PRIVATE LIMITED, LEELA TOWER, 3RD
FLOOR, DOOR NO. 53/2520, PQR SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR
AVENUE, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682019.
BY ADVS.M/S.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR,ANWIN GOPAKUMAR,ADITYA VENUGOPALAN,
MAHESH CHANDRAN,SARANYA BABU & ANGITA T. MENON
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2, 3 AND 5/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2,3
AMD 5:
1. WIPRO ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, 'WIPRO HOUSE', NO. 8, 7TH MAIN,
80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, INDIA -
560034 REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER - LEGAL AND CONSTITUTE
ATTORNEY MS. DHIVYA MENON, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O MR. K MOHAN DAS
RESIDING AT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: 4062, PRESTIGE GULMOHAR, HORAMAVU,
MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN - 560043.
2. SYNTHITE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,SPICE DIVISION, SYNTHITE TASTE
PARK, PANCODE, VADAVUCODE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA- 682310, INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 682310.
3. SYMEGA FOOD INGREDIENTS LIMITED, SYNTHITE TASTE PARK, NO. XI 312 G,
PANCODE, NEAR KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM-682310, KERALA, INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 682310.
4. MR. AJU JACOB, DIRECTOR AT DEFENDANT NO.1 AND WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR
DEFENDANT NO.2,C/O LEELA TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, DOOR NO. 52/2520, P.Q.R
SUBASH CHANDRAN BOASE ROAD, JAWAHAR NAGAR AVENUE, PONNURUNNI,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA- 682019, PIN - 682019.
This First appeal from orders having come up for orders on
10.05.2024, upon perusing the appeal memorandum, the court on the same day
passed the following:
G.GIRISH.J
-------------------------------------------------------
FAO No.59 of 2024
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of May, 2024
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 to 4 are not served with notice.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants delved in detail about the implications of Sub Sections 1 and 2 of Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and submitted that the impugned ad hoc interim injunction order passed by the District Court is one which is legally impermissible. It is pointed out that Sub Section 2 of Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with the matters in respect of which ex parte injunction or interlocutory orders could be passed, and that the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is beyond the scope of the said provision.
3. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, on the FAO No.59 of 2024 2 other hand, would argue that Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is not exhaustive, and that the said provision is only enumerating some of the matters in respect of which ex parte injunction orders could be granted and that it cannot be considered as a provision barring injunction orders in respect of other matters which are not dealt with thereunder.
4. Relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court in G.M.Sheik and others v. Raja Biri Private Ltd and others [MANU/KE/2950/2022 ]; the learned counsel for the appellants would argue that there cannot be an ex parte injunction or ad hoc interlocutory order in respect of any matters beyond the scope of Section 135(2) of the Trade Marks Act and hence the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is devoid of legal sanctity.
5. In the decision of this Court referred above, the learned Single Judge has dealt with in detail on the principles of "audi alteram partem" held that an injunction can be FAO No.59 of 2024 3 granted only pertaining to the matters included in Clause (a) to Clause (c) of Sub Section 2 of Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, and that while ordering ad hoc interim injunction and ex parte orders, the Courts must be more vigilant and cautious about the exceptions carved out under Sub Section 3 and that there should be a prima facie satisfaction that the matter would not fall under the exceptions so carved out. Admittedly, Sub Section 3 of Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has no applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case. Though there is a passive observation in paragraph No.5 of the said decision that the scope of grant of ex parte injunction under Section 135 of the Act is limited to the matters enumerated under Clause (a) to Clause (c) of Sub Section 2 subject to the exception carved out under Sub Section 3 of the Act, the learned counsel representing both sides could not produce any decisions of the Apex Court or Division Bench decisions of this Court precisely to the point. FAO No.59 of 2024 4 It appears that a detailed hearing with regard to the legal implications of Sub Section 1 and Sub Section 2 of Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is required before deciding on the legality of the impugned order. Due to paucity of time, this Court, in the course of vacation sitting, is not in a position to resort to the above course and to render a decision on this point.
In the above circumstances, the case is posted to 21.05.2024, so that the matter could be dealt with by the Regular Bench as per roster.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH JUDGE sn 10-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar