Karnataka High Court
Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd vs Brittania Industries Ltd on 10 April, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2881 OF 2018 (IPR)
Between:
1. Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.
Represented by their
Authorised signatory
Mr. Vrushal Uttarde
Having their registered office at
North Level Crossing
Vile Parle East, Mumbai
Maharashtra 400 057
2. Parle Products Pvt, Ltd.
Represented by their
Authorised signatory
Mr. Vrushal Uttarde
Having its regional Zonal sales
Office at
Brigade Rubix, Watch Factory Road
Muniswara Nagar, Yeshwantpur
Bengaluru 560 022
Having its registered office at
North Level Crossing, Vile Parle East
Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400 057
...Appellants
(by Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, Senior Advocate
For Shri Javeed, S, Advocate)
2
And
Brittania Industries Ltd.
Having its office at
Prestige Shantiniketan, Tower-C
The Business Precinct, 16th and 17th Floors,
Whitefield Mai Road, Mahadevapura Post
Bangalore - 560 048
Represented by its authorised signatory
Mr. Mohd. Mohisin Beig
Respondent
(by Shri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate
for Shri Sanjanthi Poovayya, Advocate
for C/respondent)
This MFA is filed under Order XLIII rule 1(r) of the CPC
against the order dated 02.04.2018 passed on IA No.1, to 3 in
OS No.2314 of 2018 on the file of the Principal City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru issuing exparte ad-interim injunction
against the defendants as prayed in IA 1 to 3 which shall be in
force till appearance of the defendants.
This MFA coming on for Admission, this day, the court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Respondent herein filed a suit in OS No.2314 of 2018 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in which Interlocutory Applications No.I to V of 2018 were made under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the 3 Code of Civil Procedure. The XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore granted exparte injunction on IAs I to III as follows:
On IA.I of 2018, it is the petitioner herein who is injuncted from manufacturing, exporting, marketing, offering for sale, selling, advertising or in any manner dealing in Butter, Cashew and Butter Jeera Cookies in the packaging/labels produced along with the plaint or in any other trade dress which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's packaging/label for plaintiff's Butter/Cashew/Pista Badam Cookies, until disposal of the suit;
On IA.II of 2018 petitioner herein is restrained in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in (smile device), in the packaging/labels of the Plaintiff for plaintiff's Butter/Cashew/Pista Badam Cookies, until disposal of the suit; and On IA.III of 2018 petitioner is injuncted in any manner infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in the mesh effect, on the packaging/labels of the plaintiff for plaintiff's butter/cashew/pista badam cookies until disposal of the suit.4
2. Against the said order, this appeal is filed by the defendant. Shri Dhyan Chinnappa, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order, on the very face of it, is in contravention of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He referred to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.33158 of 2014 and 33300 of 2014 (IPR) in the case of VEDANT FASHIOSN PVT. LTD. v. SMT. RAJUL DEVI disposed of 11th July 2014 and another judgment in the case of MR. R.K. JAIN EDITOR, PRINTER AND PUBLISHER, EXCISE LAW TIMES CENTAX PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD. v. SRI P.G. CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER, CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH reported in AIR 2013 KANT 142 wherein it is held that even for granting exparte injunction, the judges must give reasons as to why notices to the defendants have been dispensed with; and submits that in the instant case no reasons are forthcoming in the order impugned. He submits that no discussions are made or reasons have been given except stating that he has perused the plaint averments, documents produced 5 and has proceeded to pass order and directed compliance under Order 39 Rule 3 CPC.
3. Shri Uday Holla, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order and submits to dismiss the appeal. The learned senior counsel submits that manufacturing, selling and all process adopted by the appellant is in contravention of manufacturing, packaging and selling which is similar to that of the plaintiff-respondent product. He submits that though the learned judge has not discussed all these things, but he has gone through the pleadings made available.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for approaching the same judge to make a request to pass necessary orders. It is needless to say that while passing the order, the learned judge shall discuss and consider the pleadings made by both the parties and pass a considered order. For that reason alone it is to be held that the order dated 02nd April 2008 passed on IAs 1 to 3 of 2018 in OS No.2314 of 2018 6 by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore is not a speaking order. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to appear before the same learned Judge tomorrow, i.e. on 11th April 2018 and make necessary application; and upon appearance and upon making necessary application, the learned Judge is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
5. At this juncture, it is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant that huge quantity of finished product is kept in godown, which is a food product, is perishable in nature, and hence, the petitioner may be permitted to dispose of whatever goods that is there in stock. The said submission is to be considered since the product is a food product and is perishable one. Under the circumstance, it is in the interest of justice that the petitioner be permitted to dispose of the existing stock only and submit accounts to the Trial Court. Secondly, in respect of raw-material, it is for the appellant-respondent to make necessary application and it is for the Trial Court to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders. The learned 7 Judge is directed dispose of the applications as expeditiously as possible.
Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE