Bombay High Court
Ctr Manufacturing Industries Limited vs Sergi Transformer Explosion ... on 16 March, 2012
Author: Ranjit More
Bench: Mohit S Shah, Ranjit More
SSK/ 1 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (LODGING) NOS. 40 AND 70 OF 2012
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011
IN
SUIT (L) NO. 3026 OF 2011
CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited, )
A company registered under the provisions )
of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its ) ...Appellant
registered office at Nagar Road, Pune 411 014. ) (Original Plaintiff)
versus
1. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention )
Technologies Limited, A company registered )
under the provisions of the Companies Act, )
1956 and having its registered office at 426, )
Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Harayan, )
India. )
2. Easun MR Tap Changers Private Limited )
A company registered under the provisions of )
the Companies Act, 1956, and having its office )
at 612 (2320, M.T.H. Road, Thiruinravur, )
Chennai - 602 024. )
3. EMCO Limited )
A company registered under the provisions of )
the Companies Act, 1956 and having its office )
at Plot No.F-5, Road No.28, Wagle Industrial ) .....Respondents
Estate, Thane, Maharashtra. ) (Original Defendants)
Mr. Ravi Kadam and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, senior counsel with Mr. Vishal
Kanade, Mr. Amit Jajoo and Mr. Atul Singh i/b. M/s. Paras Kuhad and
Associates, advocates for the appellants.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 :::
SSK/ 2 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12
Mr. Atul S. Rajadhyaksha, senior counsel with Mr. Sanjay Kher, Mr.
Chaitanya Chavan and Ms. Rani Boazz i/b. Boazz Law Chambers, advocates
for respondent No.1.
CORAM : MOHIT S SHAH, C.J. &
RANJIT MORE, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 15th FEBRUARY, 2012.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 16th MARCH, 2012.
JUDGEMENT (Per Ranjit More, J.)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Since the question involved in these appeals is short, the respective counsel agree for disposal of these appeals finally at the admission stage. The parties to the above appeals are one and the same and the issue involved is also common, therefore, both the above appeals are being disposed by this common order.
2. The above appeals take exception to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 17th January, 2012 and 15th November, 2011, respectively in the above notice of motion in Suit (Lodging) No. 3026 of 2011. The brief facts giving rise to the above appeals are as follows:-
The appellant in both the appeals is the original plaintiff and respondents are the original defendants. (For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their original nomenclature as mentioned in the plaint.) The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are both engaged in manufacture of fire systems. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 both held patents in respect of the system and/or features thereof. Defendant No.1 was granted a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 3 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 patent in respect of fire systems under the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as " the Patents Act") on 14th December, 2002. The plaintiff filed an application for registration of its patent in respect of manufacture of fire systems on 16th November, 2005, and the patent was granted to the plaintiff under the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Patents Act on 3rd August, 2006. Defendant No.2 is a agent/distributor of defendant No.1's product - SERGI 3000 across various locations in India including Thane, and defendant No.3 is a company engaged in manufacturing electrical transformers is the purchaser and also suppliers of the fire systems manufactured by the plaintiff or defendant No.1.
3. The plaintiff claims that its patent and defendant No.1's patent is different. The plaintiff claims that their patent is a method for prevention, protection and detection against explosion and fire in an electrical transformer. According to the plaintiff, so far as the patent of defendant No.1 is concerned, same is a mechanical device and prone to frequent mal-function and based on technology which may be regarded as relatively obsolete in comparison to the plaintiff's patent. The plaintiff further claims that defendant No.1 mindful of the success and superiority of the plaintiff's product and/or patent and in an attempt to unfairly stop the plaintiff's business, instituted a patent infringement suit before Kolkata High Court against the plaintiff. An interim application seeking injunction against the plaintiff and restraining it from selling its products was also filed.
However, no injunction as prayed by defendant No.1 was granted by Kolkata High Court. Defendant No.1 failing to commercially exploit the Indian market for selling its fire systems, started copying the plaintiff's patent and started manufacturing "SERGI 3000" based upon the patent of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff became aware of the infringing acts of defendant No.1, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 4 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 the plaintiff on 11th February, 2010, filed a patent infringement suit against defendant No.1 in District Court at Thane for various reliefs. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction at Exhibit "5" in terms of the injunction claimed in the above suit.
4. As defendant No.1 was intending to participate in the auction conducted by Delhi Transco Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DTL") by proposing to sell the infringing product, the plaintiff initially sought ex-parte injunction against defendant No.1 restraining it from participating in the tender notice issued by DTL with regards to the impugned product. A purshis came to be filed by the plaintiff in that regard at Exhibit "9"
restricting its case and relief to restrain the defendants from selling their products to DTL for the purpose of ad-interim ex-parte relief. The District Court by its order dated 15th February, 2010, prohibited defendant Nos.1 & 2 from selling their products to DTL. On 20th March, 2010, defendant No.1 filed its written statement denying the contentions raised in the plaint.
Around this time only, defendant No.1 submitted its tender to DTL. On 23rd March, 2010, the plaintiff filed contempt application under Order 39, Rules 2A and 11 against defendant No.1 for breach of order passed on 15th February, 2010, and on 26th March, 2010, defendant No.1 filed reply to the said contempt application.
5. On 8th April, 2010, defendant No.1 presented its counter claim, however, the same was not taken on record. Between April and August, 2010, several applications were filed before the District Court viz. the defendant No.1's application to take counter claim on record and the prayer therein to consequently transfer the suit to High Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act, defendant No.1's application under Section 9A of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 5 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 C.P.C., the plaintiff's application under Section 8 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, plaintiff's application under Order 39, Rules 1, 2, 2A & 11 and replies and rejoinders therein. The District Court, by its order dated 7th August, 2010, directed that various issues/applications would all be disposed of together.
6. On 3rd July, 2010, defendant No.1 again filed an application seeking leave to take the counter claim on record. On 2nd December, 2010, DTL issued a purchase order in favour of defendant No.1. The same was accepted by defendant No.1. Security as required by DTL was also deposited by defendant No.1.This was in breach of order dated 15th February, 2010, and therefore, on 9th December, 2010, the District Court issued a fresh interim injunction order prohibiting defendant No.1 from taking any steps in relation to the purchase order received from DTL.
7. Defendant No.1 challenged the above order dated 9th December, 2010, by filing an appeal from order, in which, limited relief for submitting drawings to DTL was sought. The High Court directed defendant No.1 to move the Trial Court in this regard. The Trial Court on 28th December, 2010, rejected this application of defendant No.1 seeking leave to submit drawings to DTL. On 1st January, 2011, the Trial Court decided the jurisdictional issue and held that it had jurisdiction to decide the plaintiff's infringement suit, however, the Trial Court did not decide the issue arising from counter claim filed by defendant No.1. On 11th January, 2011, the High Court by passing an order in the appeal from order which was filed challenging the above order dated 28th December, 2010, granted leave to defendant No.1 to submit drawings to DTL. The defendant No.1's civil revision application challenging the order of the Trial Court dated ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 6 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 1st January, 2011, was disposed of on 2nd February, 2011. The High Court directed the Trial Court to decide the issue regarding the jurisdiction in light of provisions of Section 104 of the Patents Act on or before 11th February, 2011.
8. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, passed order on 18th February, 2011, thereby rejecting defendant No.1's application dated 3rd July, 2010, seeking leave of the Court to take the counter claim on record.
Thereafter, the Trial Court disposed of the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5" by passing an operative order on 25th February, 2011. By this order, the Trial Court allowed the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5".
9. Defendant No.1 filed Civil Revision Application No.185 of 2011 challenging order dated 18th February, 2011 whereunder defendant No.1's application seeking leave to take the counter claim on record was rejected.
Defendant No.1 also filed Appeal from Order No.246 of 2011 against the order of injunction dated 25th February, 2011, at Exhibit "5".
10. On 6th June, 2011, this Court allowed defendant No.1's Civil Revision Application No.185 of 2011 and in effect allowed defendant No.1's application for leave to take the counter claim on record and quashed the Trial Court's order dated 18th February, 2011. So far as Appeal from Order No. 246 of 2011 arising out of Trial Court's injunction order dated 25th February, 2011 is concerned, the same was disposed on 23rd August, 2011, by observing that same has rendered infructuous. On 1st October, 2011, the Trial Court, in pursuance of the order of the High Court passed in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011 exhibited the counter claim and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 7 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 transferred the suit to Bombay High Court in view of the proviso of Section 104 of the Patents Act.
11. The plaintiff on 12th November, 2011, filed the above notice of motion along with affidavit-in-support thereof for declaration that defendant No.1 is guilty of violating and is in breach of injunction order dated 25th February, 2011 with further request to pass necessary orders to detain the Directors of defendant No.1 to civil imprisonment for a term as this Court may deem fit and proper. Injunction was also claimed restraining defendant No.1 from participating in RRVPNL (Rajasthan Electricity Board) tender in any manner whatsoever. A prayer for appointment of the receiver was also made. This notice of motion was moved for ad-interim relief before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for the respective parties, passed an order dated 15th November, 2011. In this order, it is observed that the matter requires technical evaluation in the first instance, in any event, by an expert. The learned Single Judge further recorded a statement of defendant No.1 that it will not infringe the plaintiff's patent. The said statement was accepted and the notice of motion was directed to be heard in normal course.
12. The plaintiff thereafter found that defendant No.1, despite of being restrained from dealing with, selling its products by injunction order dated 25th February, 2011 of the District Court, participated in tender floated by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 2nd June, 2010. The plaintiff further found that defendant No.1 also had made applications to RRVPNL (Rajasthan Electricity Board) for including its name as an authorized vendor for supply of the infringing product in contravention of the said order dated 25th February, 2011, and therefore, the plaintiff filed a fresh affidavit in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 8 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 above notice of motion on 11th November, 2011, and sought orders which makes disobedience impossible and orders for attachment and/or sentencing.
13. The learned single Judge passed a fresh order on 17th January, 2012, in pursuance of the above affidavit. The learned Single Judge observed that order dated 15th February, 2010, passed by the District Court ceased to operate as it is merged into final order dated 25th February, 2011.
The learned Single Judge recorded the finding on the basis of the defendant No.1's submission that by virtue of order dated 6th June, 2011, passed in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011, counter claim must be deemed to have been taken on record on the date on which it was lodged i.e. 8th April, 2010, and therefore, even order dated 25th February, 2011, ceased to operate against defendant No.1. The learned Single Judge referred to the statement of defendant No.1 which came to be recorded in order dated 15th November, 2011, and ultimately rejected the plaintiff's prayer for ad-interim relief. Both these orders dated 15th November, 2011, and 17th January, 2012, are the subject matter of Appeal Nos. 70 and 40 respectively.
14. Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff, submitted that the order of injunction dated 25th February, 2011, granted by the District Court is valid and subsisting. Defendant No.1, despite of this injunction order has continued to act in complete defiance thereof. The said order was passed by the competent Court having jurisdiction and merely because the suit was transferred under Section 104 of the Patent Act from the District Court to the High Court, that will not dilute the validity of injunction order which was passed by the Court with inherent jurisdiction. Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel, further submitted that in these circumstances, the plaintiff's notice of motion ought to have been ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 9 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 allowed in toto. He submitted that the learned Single Judge though recorded the undertaking of defendant No.1 that it shall manufacture and sell its products in accordance with its knowhow and patent, and on the basis of the material in the public domain and, in any event, they will not infringe the plaintiff's patent, however, the learned Single Judge failed to put proper safeguards to protect the interest of the plaintiff. Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & anr. Vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors. (1997) 3 SCC 443.
15. Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1, on the contrary, opposed the appeals. He submitted that the interim orders dated 15th February, 2010, and 9th December, 2010, merged into final order dated 25th February, 2011, under which the application at Exhibit "5" came to be disposed of. He further submitted that defendant No. 1 filed counter claim as early as on 8th April, 2010. Though, the Trial Court refused to grant leave to take the counter claim on record, the High Court by passing order dated 6th June, 2011, in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011, granted leave to take the counter claim on record. He submitted that the counter claim must be deemed to have been taken on record on the date on which it was lodged i.e. on 8th April, 2010. In these circumstances and in view of the proviso of Section 104 of the Patents Act, the order passed by the Trial Court on 25th February, 2011, finally disposing the application at Exhibit "5" becomes non est, and therefore, no action against defendant No. 1 can be taken for breach of the said orders. He submitted that in view of the undertaking, the plaintiff's interest is sufficiently protected. The impugned order is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with by this Court. He further submitted that the plaintiffs patent is recent one, therefore, no injunction can ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 10 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 be asked against defendant No.1 . He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and ors vs. Mahboob Begum and ors., AIR 1955 SC 352, the decision of Madras High Court in V. Manleka Thevar vs. Messrs Star Plough Works, Melur, AIR 1965 Madras 827, the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Novartis AG and anr. Vs. Mehar Pharma and anr., 2005(3) BomCR191 and another decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 25th July, 2006, in M/s.Mauser Werke GmbH & anr. Vs. M/s. Supreme Die Works & ors. passed in Notice of Motion No.2391 of 2004.
16. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the respective parties, and having gone through the memos of appeals along with compilation annexed thereto and the decisions of the Apex Court and High Courts, we find merit in the appeals.
17. The plaintiff filed Infringement Suit No.1 of 2010 on 11th February, 2010 in the District Court against the defendants for various reliefs stated therein. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim relief at Exhibit "5' in the said suit. The District Court, at the time of institution of the suit, had the jurisdiction to entertain the infringement suit in its present form. The defendant No.1 took objection regarding the jurisdiction of the District Court, and accordingly, filed an application under Section 9A of the CPC. However, the District Court held that it had jurisdiction to try the suit. This order is challenged by the defendant No.1 in the High Court by filing appeal from order. However, the District Court's order, in this regard, is not disturbed. The plaintiff, in view of the urgency viz. DTL floated tenders for supply of fire systems and defendant No.1 participated in the same, filed purshis at Exhibit "9" restricting its claim for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 11 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 temporary relief to restrain defendant No.1 from selling its products to DTL in pursuance of the said tender. Defendant No.1 accordingly was ex-parte restrained from selling its product to DTL by order dated 15th February, 2010.
18. Defendant No.1 though filed its written statement on 20th March, 2010, submitted counter claim on 8th April, 2010. On 3rd July, 2010, defendant No.1 filed an application seeking leave to take the counter claim on record, which application came to be rejected by the Trial Court on 18th February, 2011. Defendant No.1's application to seek leave to take the counter claim on record was ultimately allowed by the High Court on 6th June, 2011 in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011. The District Court prior to thereof, disposed of the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5"
by passing order dated 25th February, 2011, thereby allowing the said application. Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned senior counsel appearing for defendant No.1, also does not dispute that the District Court had the jurisdiction to pass ad-interim orders dated 15th February, 2010 and 9th December, 2010. He, however, submitted that both these ad-interim orders are merged into final order dated 25th February, 2011, by which, the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5" was disposed of and the same was allowed.
19. In order to decide the controversy, it would be useful to reproduce the provisions of Section 104 of the Patents Act, which reads as under:
"No suit for a declaration under Section 105 or for any relief under Section 106 or for infringement of a patent ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 12 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a district Court having jurisdiction to try the suit:
Provided that where a counter-claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant, the suit, along with the counter-claim, shall be transferred to the High Court for decision."
A plain reading of this section, makes it unequivocally clear that the suit for infringement of a patent can be entertained by the District Court. The proviso to this Section 104 deals with the situation where counter claim for revocation of the patent is made by the defendant. The proviso mandates that if the counter claim is made by the defendant in a suit under Section 104 for infringement of the patent, then, it is obligatory to transfer the said suit to the High Court for decision. The proviso deals with transfer of the suit for infringement of the patent, in the event of, filing of the counter claim by the defendant.
20. Thus, when the District Court passed the ad-interim order on 15th February, 2010, restraining defendant No.1 from supplying its products to DTL, it had jurisdiction to pass such an order. Subsequently, as stated above, the District Court decided the application of defendant No.1 taking objection to jurisdiction under Section 9A of the CPC on 1st January, 2011, and held it has jurisdiction to try the said suit. The District Court on 18th February, 2011, rejected defendant No.1's application seeking leave of the Court to take the counter claim on record, and subsequently, on 25th February, 2011, decided the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5" by passing a speaking order. Defendant No.1's application seeking leave to take its counter claim on record was ultimately allowed by this Court on 6th June, 2011, and subsequently, the proceedings of the suit were transferred to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 13 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 the High Court. Section 104 of the Patents Act, speaks about transfer of the proceedings from the District Court to the High Court, in the event of, filing of the counter claim by the defendant. However, the orders of the District Court passed prior to such transfer cannot said to be illegal or void, since the District Court had undoubtedly jurisdiction to deal with the suit when those orders were passed.
21. We are unable to accept Mr. Rajadhyaksha's submission that order dated 6th June, 2011, passed in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011 granting leave to defendant No.1 to file its counter claim relates back to the date of filing of the counter claim on 8th April, 2010. Assuming that order dated 6th June, 2011 passed by this High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011 will amount to the counter claim being accepted on the date of presentation thereof, even in that case, we do not find any merit in the argument of Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned senior counsel, that order dated 25th February, 2011 below Exhibit "5" passed by the District Court stands vacated or becomes non est, in view of the provisions of Section 104 of the Patents Act, inasmuch as, the said section deals with the transfer of the proceedings and it can never be disputed that the District Court while passing order dated 25th February, 2011, had jurisdiction to decide the application at Exhibit "5".
22. It is also relevant to note that the orders passed by any Court can be vacated by the said Court or set-aside by a superior Court and the effect thereof can be nullified by suitable legislation. In other words, the orders passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction will not become nullity or will not stand automatically vacated, unless the same is vacated or set-aside by the same court or by the superior court or the effect thereof is nullified by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 14 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 suitable legislation. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that order dated 25th February, 2011, below Exhibit "5" in the plaintiff's suit was passed by the competent Court having jurisdiction. The injunction order is till date valid, subsisting and binding between the parties.
We are also of the opinion that the grant of leave in favour of defendant No.1 to take its counter claim on record will operate prospectively i.e. from 6th June , 2011 or latter date on which this order becomes operative.
23. The Apex Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & anr. (supra) was considering the question whether a person who disobeys the interim injunction granted by the Civil Court can be punished under Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the CPC, where it is ultimately found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. In this case, the appellant had filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying any construction in the suit premises. The appellant's case was that inasmuch as the building which was the subject matter of the tenancy between the parties has been destroyed by fire, the tenancy of the first defendant has come to an end. The appellant applied for a temporary injunction restraining the first defendant from carrying on any construction. An ad-interim injunction was granted by the Civil Court. Later on, the defendant moved an application under Section 9-A of the CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) for determining the issue of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the said suit. The Civil Court held that it did possess the jurisdiction to the try the suit. The High Court in revision held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act. The High Court in an appeal against the order punishing the defendant under Order 39 Rule 2-A, held that inasmuch Civil Court is found to have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, Defendants 1 & 2 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 15 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 cannot be punished for disobeying the interim orders made in such a suit, for the reason that the said interim order must equally be held to be without jurisdiction. The question for consideration before the Apex Court was, what is the effect of order under Section 9-A under which it was held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction on interim orders already issued by the Courts granting interim injunction in favour of the appellant. The Apex Court set-aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal of the appellant and held that despite the decision of the High Court that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, the interim orders already issued do not become non est. Hence, non compliance of the interim order issued prior to the decision of the jurisdiction would render the defendant liable to be punished under Order 39 Rule 2-A. The Apex Court in Paras 15 & 16 has observed as follows:
"15. The next thing to be noticed is that certain interim orders were asked for and were granted by the Civil Court during this period. Would it be right to say that violation of and disobedience to the said orders of injunction is no punishable because it has been found later that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Mr.Sorabjee suggests that saying so would be subversive of the Rule of Law and would seriously erode the majesty and dignity of the court. It would mean, suggests learned counsel, that it would be open to the defendants-respondents to decide for themselves whether the order was with or without jurisdiction and act upon that belief. This can never be, says the learned counsel. He further suggests that if any party thinks that an order made by the Civil Court is without jurisdiction or is contrary to law, the appropriate course open to him is to approach ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 16 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 that court with the plea and ask for vacating the order. But it is no open to him to flout the said order assuming that the order is without jurisdiction. It is this principle which has been recognised and incorporation in Section 9-A of Civil Procedure Code (inserted by Maharashtra Amendment Act No. 65 of 1977), says Mr.Sorabjee. Section 9-A reads as follows:
"9-A. Where at the hearing of an application relating to interim relief in suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken, such issue to be decided by the Court as a preliminary issue:-
(1) Not withstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if, at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granted any interim relief, whether by way of stay injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, an objection for the jurisdiction of the court to entertain such suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), at the hearing of any such application, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 17 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 the court may grant such interim relief as it may consider necessary, pending determination by it of the preliminary issue to the jurisdiction."
16. According to this section, if an objection is raised to the jurisdiction of the court at the hearing of an application for grant of, or for vacating, interim relief, the court should determine that issue in the first instance as a preliminary issue before granted or setting aside the relief already granted. An application raising objection to the jurisdiction to the court is directed to be heard with all expedition. Sub-rule (2), however, says that the command in sub-rule (1) does not preclude the court from granting such interim relief as it may consider necessary pending the decision on the question of jurisdiction. In our opinion, the provision merely states the obvious. It makes explicit what is implicit in law. Just because an objection to the jurisdiction is raised, the court does not become helpless forthwith - nor does it become incompetent to grant the interim relief. It can. At the same time, it should also decide the objection to jurisdiction at the earlier possible moment. This is the general principle and this is what Section 9-A reiterates. Take this very case. The plaintiff asked for temporary injunction. An ad-interim injunction was granted.
Then the defendants came forward objecting to the grant of injunction and also raising an objection to the jurisdiction of the court. The court over-ruled the objection as to jurisdiction and made the interim injunction absolute. The defendants ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 18 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 filed an appeal against the decision on the question of jurisdiction. While that appeal was pending, several other interim orders were passed both by the Civil Court as well as by the High Court. Ultimately, no doubt, the High Court has found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit but all this took about six years. Can it be said that orders passed by the Civil Court and the High Court during this period of six years were all non est and that it is open to the defendants to flout them merrily, without fear of any consequence. Admittedly, this could not be done until the High Court's decision on the question of jurisdiction. The question is whether the said decision of the High Court means that no person can be punished for flouting or disobeying the interim/interlocutory orders while they were in force, i.e., for violations and disobedience committed prior to the decision of the High Court on the question of jurisdiction. Holding that by virtue of the said decision of the High Court [on the question of jurisdiction], no one can be punished thereafter for disobedience or violation of the interim orders committed prior to the said decision of the High Court, would indeed be subversive of Rule of Law and would seriously erode the dignity and the authority of the courts. We must repeat that this is not even a case where a suit was filed in wrong court knowingly or only with a view to snatch an interim order. As pointed out hereinabove, the suit was filed in the Civil Court bona fide. We are of the opinion that in such a case the defendants cannot escape the consequences of their disobedience and violation of the interim injunction committed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 19 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 by them prior to the High Court's decision on the question of jurisdiction. "
(emphasis supplied)
24. In our view, the ratio of the decision of Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact, the plaintiff herein is on better footing. In the above case before the Apex Court, it was ultimately found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, and still, the interim orders passed by that Court are held to be valid and binding between the parties and does not become non est. In the present case, the ig District Court undisputedly had jurisdiction when it passed orders dated 15th February, 2010 and 25th February, 2011. The jurisdiction of the Trial Court to try the suit for infringement of the patent under Section 104 is divested in view of the proviso of the said Section and subsequent acceptance of the counter claim of defendant No.1. This was done on 6th June, 2011. In these circumstances, we find that under the provisions of Section 104, the suit is required to be transferred to the High Court after filing of the counter claim. However, the orders passed by the Trial Court prior to the transfer will not become bad, illegal, void ab initio or non est. The said orders would be valid, subsisting and binding on the parties, unless the same are vacated or modified or set-aside by the same court or superior Court.
25. The reliance placed by Mr. Rajadhyaksha, learned senior counsel, on the decision of the Apex Court in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum (supra) is misplaced. In this case by firman dated 19th February, 1939, the Nizam constituted a Special Commission to investigate and submit a report to him in a case of succession to a deceased Nawab which was transferred to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 20 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 the commission from the file of Darul Quaza Court. A firman dated 26th June, 1947, declared the report of the commission worthy of implementation and directed it to be implemented. The report was transmitted to the Chief Justice of the Hyderabad High Court for execution with a direction that report for distribution of 'matrooka' property should be submitted for the Nizam's sanction before carrying it into effect. Later on, the previous order was withdrawn by a firman dated 24th February, 1949 and the decision of the Special Commission was set-aside in respect of certain claimants. This firman was again revoked by a fresh firman dated 7th September, 1949, and the case was referred to another person for opinion and report. Considering the effects of these various firmans, the Apex Court held that the report of the Special Commission could not per se operate as a decree. The Apex Court held that if the firman dated 24th February, 1949,was to set-aside the decision of the Special Commission in respect of certain claimants and though the subsequent firman dated 7th September, 1949 revoked the earlier firman, it did not restore the decision of the Special Commission. The Apex Court further held that in these circumstances, there was no final and conclusive determination of the rights of the parties in existence after the order of 7th September, 1949, which was capable of execution as a decree.
In short, the Apex Court held that by firman dated 7th September, 1949, the earlier firman dated 24th February, 1949, was revoked. However, the original firman dated 26th June, 1947 cannot be revived. The above conclusion of the Apex Court was based upon the fact that firman dated 7th September, 1949, did not repeal the earlier firman of 24th February, 1949, 'simpliciter' but made a further provision providing for fresh enquiry and report which presupposed the continuance of the repeal of the original firman dated 26th June, 1947. In our considered view, the ratio of this case cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 21 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 case, as order dated 25th February, 2011, was never vacated or set aside either by the District Court or by the Superior Court respectively.
26. So far as the decision of the Madras High Court in V. Manleka Thevar's case (supra ) and the decisions of learned Single Judge in Novartis AG and M/s.Mauser Werke GmbH (supra) are concerned, the same deals with the principles that no temporary injunction can be granted when the patent is recent one and the validity of its grant is disputed. The subject matter of these appeals is not order dated 25th February, 2011. The only contention of defendant No.1 is that the said order is non est in view of the subsequent event viz. acceptance of the counter claim. The ratios of these judgments, therefore, cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
27. This takes us to consider the status of the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5" in his suit, in light of the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 23rd August, 2011, in Appeal from Order No. 246 of 2011. The said application, as stated earlier, came to be allowed by the District Court by its order dated 25th February, 2011. Order dated 25th February, 2011, was challenged by defendant No.1 by filing the above appeal from order. The appeal from order came to be disposed of on 23rd August, 2011 i.e. subsequent to order dated 6th June, 2011, passed by another learned Single Judge in Civil Revision Application No. 185 of 2011, under which leave to take the counter claim on record was granted. It would be convenient to reproduce order dated 23rd August, 2011, passed in Appeal from Order No. 246 of 2011. The said order reads as under:
"1. The order of injunction dated 25th February, 2011 passed by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 22 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 District Judge, Thane in an application under the Patents Act is impugned in this Appeal. Consequent upon Counter Claim being filed on 8th February, 2011 (sic), which has been confirmed by an order of this Court dated 6.6.2011, the Thane District Court is ceased to have jurisdiction from that date.
2. Therefore whether or not the Order of injunction dated 25th February, 2011 would be in force or not passed after the Counter Claim was filed on 18th April, 2010 (sic) can be seen only by the Court having the original jurisdiction.
3. Consequently, the Appeal from Order on merits has become infructuous and is disposed of as such."
Perusal of the above order makes it clear that the learned Single Judge did not enter into the merits of the matter and the appeal from order was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The learned Single Judge observed that the District Court at Thane ceased to have jurisdiction consequent upon acceptance of the counter claim. It was further observed that whether the order of injunction dated 25th February, 2011, would be in force or not after the counter claim was filed on 8th April, 2010, can be seen only by the Court having original jurisdiction.
28. We have already held that the District Court was having jurisdiction when it passed order dated 25th February, 2011, below Exhibit "5" in the plaintiff's suit. Since the subject matter of the present appeals is not order dated 25th February, 2011, we cannot and have not gone into the merits of the said order. Though, defendant No.1 challenged the said order ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 ::: SSK/ 23 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12 by filing Appeal from Order No. 246 of 2011, the same was disposed of as having rendered infructuous with further observation that the Court having original jurisdiction can see whether order dated 25th February, 2011 survives or not. In effect, defendant No.1 could not get an opportunity to challenge the said order on merits nor could argue the application for interim injunction after the counter claim was taken on record (the application for which was already filed before 25th February, 2011, but it was taken on record after 6th June, 2011). In these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that order dated 25th February, 2011, below application at Exhibit "5" should be treated as an ad-interim order. The learned Single Judge of this Court who is seized of the suit consequent upon the transfer of the same by the District Court under Section 104 of the Patents Act shall treat application at Exhibit "5" as pending and shall dispose of the same finally after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The learned Single Judge further shall accordingly proceed to dispose of the plaintiff's above notice of motion.
29. We, accordingly, hold that order dated 15th February, 2010 below purshis at Exhibit "9" as well as order dated 25th February, 2011, passed in application at Exhibit "5" by the District Court are in the nature of ad-interim orders and they are subsisting and binding on defendant No.1 as ad-interim orders. Consequently, the impugned orders, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, quashed and set-aside. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed. The learned Single Judge shall treat the plaintiff's application at Exhibit "5" in the suit as pending and decide the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 :::SSK/ 24 judgment app (l) 40 & 70.12
30. We may not be treated to have expressed any opinion on merits of the controversy between the parties. All contentions are kept open.
(CHIEF JUSTICE) (RANJIT MORE, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:18:04 :::