Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

xi) The appellant-company herein have not established that there is any prima facie case or the balance of convenience in favour of the applicant before the CLB nor established any irreparable prejudice that may be suffered by the appellant-company in the event of nongrant of anti-suit injunction.

17. Again, before dealing with the issues raised in the present case, the scope, the power and jurisdiction of this Court to deal with the appeal has to be gone into.

18. The above appeal is preferred under Sec.10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the said provision, any person aggrieved by the decision or order of the CLB is given liberty to prefer an appeal to the High Court on any question of law arising out of that order. So, now we have to decide on the basis of the above said provision, regarding the scope of our jurisdiction while dealing with the order of the CLB, dated 5.7.2004. Even according to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, the CLB is only exercising its inherent and discretionary power either to grant or reject the prayer for injunction. Only if it is established that the CLB exercised such power arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or contrary to the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction, this Court can interfere with the said order. But if such power was exercised reasonably and in a judicial manner by the CLB, the appellate court is not justified in interfering with the said order by taking a different view. 19. This view of ours is supported by the decision of the Apex Court in the decision in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhat Shah, AIR 2002 S.C. 275, in which it is held as follows:"17. We are conscious of the law that this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the exercise of discretion in the matter of grant of temporary injunction by the High Court and the trial Court and substitute its own discretion therefor except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where the order of the Court under scrutiny ignores the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the Court below solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate Court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial Court' s exercise of discretion. However, the present one is a case falling within the well accepted exceptions. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court have kept in view and applied their mind to the relevant settled principles of law governing the grant or refusal of the interlocutory injunction in trade mark and trade name disputes. A refusal to grant an injunction in spite of the availability of facts, which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and material available on record justifying the grant thereof, occasion a failure of justice and such injury to the plaintiff as would not be capable of being undone at a later stage. The discretion exercised by the trial Court and the High Court against the plaintiff is neither reasonable nor judicious. The grant of interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff could not have been refused, therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of this Court to interfere."

22. From the above said decisions, it is clear that this Court can interfere with the order of the CLB only if discretionary/inherent powers of the CLB, is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or ignored the settled principles of law in granting interlocutory injunction. We can also interfere with the order if we are able to conclude that the CLB has not exercised its power in granting injunction in spite of the availability of facts which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and material available on record justifying the grant thereof and occasioned failure of justice and thereby the appellant sustained irreparable injury, but at the same time the appellate Court cannot reassess the material and reach a conclusion different from one reached by the CLB solely on the ground that if it had considered in a particular manner, it would have come to contrary conclusion. While reversing the order of the CLB, this Court must come into close quarters with the reasonings assigned by the CLB and then this Court has to assign its own reasonings in arriving at a different conclusion. 23. Dr.Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, in his own style, while explaining the power of the Appellate court to interfere with the discretionary order of the CLB, relied on the "Carpet Theory", as he mentioned. According to him, if the lower forums have walked through carpet without stepping down from the same, the appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of the said forum. It is not the matter, such a walking is straight or zig-zag. It is only for the appellate Court to see whether the said forum had walked on the carpet or stepped down from the carpet. He refers the carpet to its power or jurisdiction of the forum for disposing of the application for injunction. We have to find out hereinafter whether the CLB had walked through the carpet or stepped out. 24. Now on the basis of the above settled principles of law regarding the power of this Court to deal with the appeal, we are inclined to deal with the case on the basis of the pleadings and argument advanced by the respective learned Senior Counsel. 25. Before dealing with Point No.1, it is beneficial to deal with the scope of "anti-suit injunction" in general which are culled out from various decisions. The same is not defined or dealt with in the Code of Civil Procedure. (i) When a court restrains a party to a suit/proceedings before it from instituting or prosecuting a case in another court, including a foreign court, it is called "anti-suit injunction". (ii) Anti-suit injunction can be issued on the ground of "equity and good conscience".