Karnataka High Court
Six Continents Hotels Inc vs Cehd Corporation on 25 October, 2010
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25¢ DAY OF OCTOBER, 2O1Q,.V".:"._V'
BEFORE LOOO
THE HON'E5LE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VE§i§£LjGOPA~LI"V.--A4GOV'€f)I¢AA O
WRIT PETITION NO.32722/IOIO ?,._CIi\»u1'-~=(.:':P_,C1- '' 'V, , Of
BETWEEN:
1 SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS INC.
A CORPORATION INc:O.RPc.IRA_TEO'DA._V ,
UNDER THE LAWS OF 'DEI...AVV,*AR.E, 'D,..'jS,A=. _
THREE RAVINIA DRIVE," ' 2
SUITE 2900, ATLAl\.*'|'A," -- .. j
GA 30345-224$:-', '_ 2: V:
THE U_N~'JED 5STI+\T'ES Or?,AM_ER;Ic:A,
REPRESENTED BY ITS,f'AU"THOR£--SE.D SIGNATORY
SR_1J_QY'~DASi:_,_ ~ "
SC HOTELS AND RES,O.,RTS (IND.I_A)_ --
PRIVATE LIMITED' _ '
FORM ERLY B'A,SS_HOTELS' +'\ND__
RESORTS (INDIA) PVT..LTD " .
FORMERLY HOLIDAY INN CROWNE
.PLAzA~ €I_ND1'A) PRIVATE LIMITED
A" COMRANV :IN'CO RPO RA'I'II"E'D
VWIN ACC_ORDFx«NC4E"'WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
COMF?ANIES._ACT,..,_19S6,
& I-EAVING 'ITS. REGISTE RED
OFFICE AT 807-€809, MERCANTILE HOUSE,
V .15 KGMARG, -NEW DELHI A 110 091,
R_EPRESE~NTED BY ITS ALJTHORISED SIGNATORY
" 77--sRI3O_Y OAS.
PETITIONERS
{Ev___S«RI SHREYAS IAVASIMHA, ADV.)
1 CEHD CORPORATION
825, 10A MAIN, 1ST STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 550 038,
ALSO AT# 545,
HENNUR CROSS ROAD,
ST. THOMAS TOWN,
BANGALORE 560084 _
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR.
2 CROWN PLAZA HOTELS AND RESORTS
# 545, HENNUR CROSS RO.AD., '
ST. THOMAS TOWN, '
BANGALORE -- 560,084, , .
ALSO AT: NO.125,._1'ST FLOOR," ,
1ST MAIN, DOMLURQND 'S_TAGE,
BANGALORE - 560 071, I
REPRESENTED BY,iTS" --
MANAGI,NG«DI_REC=TOR.
3 »::ROwN..RI,AzA, HOTEL' AND RESORTS PVT LTD
C./O --.CEH D' 5:O.,RRDRA_T'ION -
825, 10A MAI.N«1ST._STAGE,
IND=IRANAG'AR"'.' ..
BANG"A.LOB.E --'--. 56.0 038
; ' RERRESE-N_TE'D BY' ITS
MANAGING'"DI.R.ECTOR.
' RESPONDENTS
IWR.I,T~' PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227"OF TH-E,'CC,5=NSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER 1,10.201€) VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE XVIII AIDDL. CC & SJ, BANGALORE IN O.S. NO.16134/2003; DIRECT TO THE HON'BLE CIVIL COURT TO DISPOSE OFF O.S. A '' l'x'OE.__1613I4 OF 2003 WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN THE IPRESENT MATTER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING TTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
QRDER The petitioners/plaintiffs have O.S.N0.1613-4/2063 in the City cm: Cou:'t--,f::'Bas§el!oa'e_,'_'e ' against the respondents/defend;mts---.for if reféefsz "[i) A decree of perma11.erit:_pinjunction' to restrain the l' defendants jointly and_____l"seVerally directors, partners, proprietors, agents from infringing plaintiff trademarks nos.41e2<37', .41e299"a{;d @6300 1géi»fig HOLIDAY INN 3, Class 16 and use"of the mark, word or narne.brol\yrif:.3PlaZ*a» an'y~9t1*ler mark, Word, name or or: otherwise similar thereto as itstrading cor_por'ate name or as a part thereof; ; '(iii decree of permanent injunction to restrain the dg§envda;ats,l directors, partners, proprietors, and agents from 'passing off their products as that of the plaintiffs by use of the nj.ark,,'.wford or name Crown Plaza or any other mark, Word, name or expression deceptively or otherwise A' sirnilar thereto as its trading style, corporate name or as a part thereof; ' /"
/-
temporary injunction, filed MFA No.2858/2006, which having been dismissed by a judgment dated had filed S.L.P £\l0.3S82/2007.
3. By an order dated o.7s,s,3,2oo§,iodtfie i~¥'on:'bie.. Supreme Court of India has;"i',Vdis_'miiVssed No.3582/2007. However, theDt~ri_a| em was"'t9e'qees:ted" * L' to expedite the hearin,g..of the--Vdmvatter, oossibie, within four months. The not been expedited, the peti_tion:eri'iie:d By an order dated' ~..trifavi" was directed to make of"'the}suit as expeditiously as possibV|:e,.A ° ' it d d .
The tVriVa|At>_i"t--'ne suit is complete as is evident agmemo Addate-d"O1.10.2010 filed in the suit. The memo ':<e'ad's~ as"-follows:
"It,.i'ss:'i.respectfu11y submitted that the piaintiffs have zcora1c.h}..ded the oral arguments on merits on _ I'8.:O8.2009 and thereafter have filed Written argumerlts on 02.1 1.2009. The defendants have addressed arguments on merits or1\:):.}_2.2009. This //~ Horfble Court on 28.05.2010 and 17.06.2010 has recorded that the plaintiff counsel is heard in fu1i.'.:""The defendants have addressed arguments in "pa';"ty:"..o11. 15.07.2010. 19.07.2010 and have eone.1ud:ed7f-1.1ie--.T'~ arguments on merits on O7.08.2010_..~~~,.'ftiere.::is no further reply arguments by fp'1aiVnt.iff-1'a-SJnoted'V'byV7 this Hon'ble Court on 07.08.2a01C._that t}'1e_A'1"epiy plaintiff has been heard'.:_ WI-EEREFORE, since byQ_tb'~v._t11e counsels for the plaintiffs and V det'enVda_ri€s' have A eoncluded arguments on Iiaerits,-fit 'prayed that this Hon'ble iC3r.):1:;1'rt_ beiblevased 'above matter for Judgrnent. the interests'. of_it1stiee and equity".
tri-a.|VV_c5ourt has recorded as foiEows:._ _"Mern'0. is filed the counsel for plaintiff. Call on for citations.' "and to hear defendants finally by 1:té;;10'.:2010".
«'0'_"_v»._Th.e'V:grievance of the petitioners is that, the triaicourt 'i"u'as not given effect to the orders passed by this Court (in 22.04.2010 in W.P.N0.13322/2010 and that of "Apex Court on 07.03.2010 in S.L.P No.3582/2007.
"This writ petition filed is for quashing the order dated //"
..,.
01.10.2010 and to direct the triai court to dispose of the suit within one month from the date of communic;ati:'o.n*ovf the order.
6. Sri Shreyas 3ayasim__ha,.__leairnflgfi--:'_';vadyo'eate_V appearing for the petitioners contends_A_Ath'at,'the has vioiated the order/directio'n~..jssue'd by 'V 0' and this Court, by repeatediyaadjourning,,_th§; matter without any justifiabie been showing any eagerness 'fAor,__dispo'saithe deiay has denied the; the petitioners, being used by the respond-en"ts and the petitioners are subje_ctedxt'o.,loss,' at A' .__Keepin'g ---- -«in view the grievance of the 'W.,_peAt5tior're:rsipanduythe nature of the order that is being passed, i«t'isj_;i.nnecessary to notify the respondents. 8;], «in the case of BAYER INDIA LIMITED vs. or MAHARASHTRA, reported in (1993) 3 sec 29, it (,«~'' fr the appeilants had approached the Apex Court for reiief. The Apex Court had directed it to file a review pet.i.t__ion, which was directed to be disposed of within four":rrio.h--t:hs from the date of the order (See 1991 AIR "
said order was not complied with.V.Arri appli'cat_iJoh'-VI,wa'Sv4fi'l.ed, it complaining of nomdisposal of ro_Aatterll'desp',ivteV than two years period havirigfbeenA.eiapsed;.: V"TVhei"A:pex " ' Court has held as follows:
"5. We are saddened"to'-idiotice: spite of the Court's 1'e_que_st Contained th.is«..jdrder dated 6~2-
1991, the 'disposed of the review petijtionfiitill Court was requested to dispose petition within four months fronithe date of order and, at any rate, by 30"
X .9--199"}'; is.rnoi*e than two years since the order was WhiI'e~we..certainly respect the independence of A i'.hAevA..iiig1aV Court and recognise that it is a co--equai cannot but say' at the same time, that the .tr:onst;itutional scheme and judicial discipline rec1uii*e.s that the High Court should give due regard to the it orders of this Court which are binding on all it-'C0t11'tS within the territory of India. The request made in this case was contained in a judicial order. It does no credit to either institution that it has not been heeded to. We hope and trust that the delay in the disposal of the review is either aeeidenta1xVor'r.on account of some or other procedural p1'ob1eI<n'." S-that as it may, the present situation would Iio--';dI'1aveyVariserI"e d' if only the review petition had been the time contemplated in the iorderédated d I
9. In the case of CVHINTAPALLI AGENCY ARRACK SALES CO-OPERATISVE, SoeI.ET¥j"_:ANo it OTHERS vs. SECRETARY g.I=oo'o' "mo i5«G'RICi.}LTURE) GOVERNMENT or AI\u£4'E)VdE-i_RA" AND OTHERS, reported in A:IR--l:1$?77 was made that there which was only by way ot'--,'ire.quAest"'5, The submission was not acce pted toliowsz the Government to a subordinate is tantamount to a positive direction or order diE'fieu1t for the subordinate authority to . the same."
10:1' -In the case of SPENCER & COMPANY LTD. AND VS. VISE-IWADARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS PVT. I_Te.~'ANo OTHERS, reported in (1995) 3 sec 259, while 1\§L-
I/4' (up dealing with the binding nature of the order passed by the Hon'b|e Supreme Court, referring to the provisions 'otthe Articles 141, 142 8: 144 of the Constitution,:~~'s-5~Q..i?li'i_Cé3fif~. observations have been made to the foiiowinegeeffectj C "ID. The afore--narrated words, C-wefthink,"pres:entl;,f,.l are enough to assert the, singular 'Constitutional ro--le"ofl * this Court, and eorresponelliiagiy di' the "role of it all authorities, civil or judieialt, in_the.terIfitoryf?of India, towards it, who Constitution to act in aid of this Court is one such judi'ciVal__ auti.hVorit3l'V¥ C.(:)'V'E3Tv1'£,3V.(Il Article 144 of the C()'.I1§;.§Qtlt'ldEi"['.i'§)Il.vll'L':a :qd'dst1'oh. The order dated 14w1w€.1_V9E}fu1 lwasi Indeed a judicial order and 'othe:fwtse.Veni%oreeable throughout the territory of India of the Constitution. The High Cour't..jéVaS toieome in aid of this Court when it 'reqiuired"'i.hue" Court to have its order worked out. {The languagefloflrlequest oftenly employed by this Court _in._suehrsituations is to be read by the High Court as in carrying out the Constitutional rn_a'r1d'ate, maintaining the Writ of this Court running large throughout the country".
" 11'. In W.P.No.13322/2010, by an order dated
-- l'2:2lilO"4.2010, trial court was directed to make all efforts to /j"
1] dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possibie. The memo dated 01.10.2010 (supra) indicates that, the triai not made efforts to expedite the proceedingsjof, "
either in terms of the request made"by,th5e oh the specific direction issued by
12. Out of courtesy,,the Apex_vCourt ,,reg;.ested, the trial court to expedite the H"he_a'r'ing or-. the rftatter, if possible, within four rrio_n't.hs has been said that, judicial language is .va_ViVuE>ay's-.chaste. The request made in' co,rj'taine'd"in":the judicial order, which ought to have to, atleast when this court directed to'~..mal,<e'v,alt-vpefforts to dispose of the suit as "V..,.,ex?étiit_i_ous,_ly a"s"'p--o-ss'ib|e. The language of "request"
in judicial orders is to be read as an o'bl'i'giatiq«n,f'ji_n5' carrying out the constitutionai mandate, maintaviini;_ng the authority of the Apex Court and this Court. A X_"iA',hle're is inaction on the part of the learned trial judge. lg.
Z' nu com,
13. In the hierarchy of courts, if the higher court either makes a request or issues direction to th~e._j's..ubr ordinate court, there is an obiigation on the court concerned to give effect either...tQ_theretiue-'s.tV"orV"tVhei.it "
direction as the case may be. ;"Tlfim'_('eiA~'a5ou»nd'~ _direc:t'i--ori:1-.h_' issued wiii have to be adhered_v"to stric-tiiy. V _Tii,:iV's..has come across cases, whereinVApt_hVe~ai_owver icouiritns have not been disposing off the Vrriatters_y\i~i,thi'n"--the"s--ti_puiated period. Such action d4c{es__ when the request/direction triai court is directed to dispose' at an eariy date but not later thanuwi-Sd;1v.2.2Ci_1V'C';_ancisubmit compiiance report to this ' _W_rit ;pét'i't.ion stands disposed of accordingiy. triai court forthwith.
Reég'iVstr\f is directed to send copy of this order to the Sdffi Iudcfé pp Ksj/A