Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants No.2 & 4 submitted that the present application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is basically filed on three counts i.e. the suit being under valued, cause of action being artificial & fake and two parallel proceedings being availed by the plaintiffs simultaneously and based on the first count of under valuation, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants No.2 & 4 submitted that the suit of the plaintiff has been under valued just to avoid the matter getting adjudicated by the Commercial Court and this action of the plaintiffs amounts to forum shopping and such practice has been strictly deprecated by (6 of 23) [OOS-1/2021] the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments delivered in this regard. Counsel next submitted that cause of action as disclosed in the suit is artificial & fake as on a single bill showing purchase of Air Cooler by the plaintiff on 25.02.2021 from defendant no.1, who has been wrongly alleged to be the distributor of defendants no.2 & 4, the present suit has been filed which is not sustainable on this count also. Counsel then submitted that during pendency of the present suit, the plaintiffs have also approached the Controller, Trademark & Designs, Kolkata and thus the subject matter before both the two forums being the same, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to sail in two boats simultaneously availing two parallel proceedings at a single point of time. Counsel further submitted that in fact no cause of action arises for filing of this suit before the court at Jaipur which has no jurisdiction in the matter and it is the Commercial Court which has jurisdiction to try & decide the suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs as the same relates to the dispute to be adjudicated upon under the Act, 2000. Counsel lastly submitted that the application of the applicants-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC be allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs under the Act, 2000 be dismissed.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra (Dead) Vs. Chandadevi & Sons(P) Ltd. Co. & Ors. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 335, in para No.5, has held as under:-

"5. In our opinion, it is not necessary to permit two parallel proceedings being pursued at the instance of the same person. Hence, we direct this appeal to be treated as disposed of and the interim orders dated 24-12-2003 and 16-1-2004 passed by this court to remain in operation till the High Court has heard and decided the application dated 18-12-2003 filed by the appellant herein who is Respondent 6 in the High Court."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. v. Surinder Singh Banolta reported in (2006) 12 SCC 484, in para No.18, has held as under:-

"18. If a candidate or a voter had the knowledge that the elected candidate was disqualified in terms of Section 122 of the Act, he may file an application. The order of eviction may come to the notice of some other person after the election process is over. A situation, thus, may arise where two different proceedings may lie before two different authorities at the instance of two different persons. Two parallel proceedings, it is well settled, cannot be allowed to continue at the same time. A construction of a statute which may lead to such a situation, therefore, must be avoided. It will also lead to an absurdity if two different Tribunals are allowed to come to contradictory decisions."

21. The second argument raised by counsel for the defendants No.2 & 4 that two parallel proceedings cannot run together, one before this court and another before the Controller under the Act of 2000 is also not acceptable in view of the fact that two separate provisions with regard to cancellation of registration of design as well as for restraining from using a registered design are provided under the Act of 2000. Further, so far as infringement on account of copy being made of the design registered with the plaintiffs only is concerned, there is no bar of jurisdiction in filing the suit before the Civil Court under the Act of 2000.