Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Submissions on behalf of the Defendant:

26. Dr. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel, opposed the present Interim Application essentially on three grounds (A) this Court did not have jurisdiction, (B) 902-IA(L)-35022-2024 the Plaintiff had pleaded an inconsistent case, and (C) the Plaintiff had suppressed material documents.

A. This Court does not have jurisdiction :

27. Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs since this Hon'ble Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the present Suit. He pointed out that the Suit was for infringement and passing off and that insofar as the claim for infringement was concerned, the Plaintiff's contention was that the Plaintiff carries on business in Mumbai. He pointed out that the Plaintiff had, in paragraph 30 of the Plaint, inter alia, stated as follows:

32. Dr. Tulzapurkar thus submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to establish, either in its pleadings or otherwise, that any part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

B. The Plaintiff has pleaded an inconsistent case:

33. Dr. Tulzapurkar then submitted that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any interim reliefs on account of the inconsistent and contrary pleas taken. He submitted that the Plaintiff had, in the course of oral arguments, advanced a case which was entirely different from and directly contrary to the case pleaded in the Plaint. In particular, he pointed out that while the Plaintiff had argued that the Defendant was permitted to use "TRACKON" as a permissive user, the Plaintiff had in paragraph 13 of the Plaint categorically stated, "The Plaintiff has at no point expressly or implicitly permitted the Defendant to use the TRACKON Mark or any part thereof."

58. He then pointed out that the Defendant's entire argument of pleading an inconsistent case rested on a single sentence in paragraph 13 of the Plaint, namely that "the Plaintiff has at no point expressly or implicitly permitted the Defendant to use the TRACKON Mark or any part thereof". He submitted that by doing so the Defendant was completely ignoring the context in which the statement appears in the context of the Plaint read as a whole. Mr. Dhond submitted that, in the Plaint, the 17 2005 (7) SCC 510 902-IA(L)-35022-2024 Plaintiff had unequivocally asserted proprietorship and exclusivity over the TRACKON Marks as was evident from paragraph 1.2 and 5.3 of the Plaint.

68. Mr. Dhond therefore submitted that the Defendant's contentions were ex facie without merit and liable to be rejected. He submitted that the present case is a fit case not only for the grant of interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), and

(d).

Defendant's Submissions in Sur-rejoinder:

69. Dr. Tulzapurkar, in sur-rejoinder, submitted that the Plaintiff's contention that the plea of inconsistent pleadings had been satisfactorily answered in rejoinder was wholly unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. He submitted that the Plaintiff was required to set out, in the Plaint itself, all material pleas necessary for obtaining relief. He submitted that the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to cure fundamental 19 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9825 20 (2024) 7 SCC 370 902-IA(L)-35022-2024 defects in its pleadings by advancing inconsistent or contradictory cases in rejoinder under the guise of answering the Defendant's submissions.