Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., while expressing the scope of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed the present petition.
A petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants against the order of the Commercial Court.
Petitioners/Defendants Counsel submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside as it contained directions to “law and land” and in contravention of the decision of this Court in Black Diamon Track Parts Private Limited v. Black Diamond Motors Private Limited, FAO (COMM) 41/2021. In this first appeal, Court had set aside the interim injunction which had been granted ex-parte to the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, there was no right left in the respondent/plaintiff which required protection.
Counsel in addition to the above submission stated that the impugned order was misplaced and against the orders of this Court in the First Appeal. Further, it submitted that under Section 136 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court could not have appointed a Court Commissioner beyond its jurisdictional limits. Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 saved the vested rights of the petitioners/defendants as it was the predecessor-in-interest of the parties who had the Trademark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’ registered in their names. The family members being engaged in a dispute, the petitioners/defendants could not be prevented from using the trademark.
It was also submitted that the Court could not have further directed the petitioners/defendants to deposit the sale proceeds in the Court or furnish a bank guarantee, as such orders were beyond the jurisdiction vested in a Court.
Analysis, Law and Decision
High Court noted that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being one of judicial superintendence cannot be exercised to upset conclusions, howsoever erroneous they may be, unless there was something grossly wrong or unjust in the impugned order shocking the court’s conscience or the conclusions were so perverse that it becomes absolutely necessary in the interest of justice for the court to interfere.
The Court remarked that, “a mere wrong decision without anything more is not enough to attract this jurisdiction.”
This Court added, to say that the impugned order was in violation of the view taken by the Division Bench would be incorrect, The mutual rights were yet to be determined in the suit and the pending the suit, the interests of both sides were kept in mind and in the impugned order when the petitioners/defendants sought the release of the goods, while allowing that plea of petitioners/defendants, the Court chose to also take care of the interests of the respondent/plaintiffs. Hence no error could be ascribed to the view taken.
With regard to the application of Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, it had no bearing on the present matter, as the application disposed of by the Commercial Court was for the release of goods, on an application moved by the petitioners and it was not a determination of mutual rights in respect of the registered trademark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’.
Bench found no error in the impugned order merely on account of the observation that the rights of the respondent/plaintiff would be adequately protected, if certain directions were to be issued.
Lastly, the Court concluded stating that in umpteen number of cases, the Courts have balanced interests by issuing similar orders or even requiring the furnishing of security before release of money to one who claimed to be entitled to it, in pending disposal of the suit or appeal.
High found no merit in the present petition. [Black Diamond Trackparts (P) Ltd. v. Black Diamon Motors (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 545, decided on 22-2-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
For the Petitioners: Praveen Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Advocate with Nipun Katyal, Advocate.