Bombay High Court: The present application was filed by the defendant seeking rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff for trade mark infringement, Manish Pitale, J., opined that the fact that more than eight years had elapsed between September 2015 to August 2023, could not be a ground to ipso facto conclude that the plaintiff could not contemplate urgent interim reliefs. In the present case, the plaintiff provided details of the manner in which the defendant refuted the plaintiff’s rights, despite registered trademarks in the plaintiff’s favor and in that context, the plaintiff had indeed contemplated urgent interim relief while filing the present suit.
Hence, in light of the pleadings in the plaint, the documents filed and the pleadings in the application for interim reliefs, the Court held that the plaintiff had made out enough grounds to demonstrate that it does contemplate urgent interim reliefs, thereby showing that the plaint could not be rejected as being barred by Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘Act’). Consequently, the Court rejected the contentions made on behalf of the defendants and dismissed the application.
Background
The application was filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), seeking rejection of plaint on the short ground of non-compliance of Section 12-A of the Act, on the part of the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the present commercial suit, praying for relief of permanent and mandatory injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing plaintiff’s trade mark. The pleadings in the application for interim reliefs were completed, but since the defendant had filed the present application for rejection of plaint, the Court took this matter up for consideration.
It was stated that the cause of action for the plaintiff arose in September 2015. On 14-10-2015, the defendant issued a response letter denying the allegations made by the plaintiff. As per the defendant, the plaintiff became aware in October 2015, about the stand of the defendant and if the plaintiff desired urgent interim reliefs, the suit ought to have been filed immediately thereafter. Instead, the plaintiff chose not to take any action in the matter. In May 2018, the plaintiff chose to file a police complaint against the defendant for alleged infringement of its mark. Even at this stage, the plaintiff chose not to initiate any civil action against the defendant. The criminal proceedings remained pending and after about 8 years of accrual of cause of action, the plaintiff chose to file the instant suit in August 2023.
The defendant contended that since a perusal of the plaint itself showed that the present suit did not contemplate any urgent interim relief, the plaintiff ought to have first exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation as per Section 12-A of the Act, before instituting the present suit. According to the defendant, the requirement of Section 12-A of the Act was mandatory in nature and hence, the present application filed by him should be allowed, thereby rejecting the plaint.
Decision and Analysis
The Court observed that each individual case had to be appreciated on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and the reliefs sought by the plaintiff. The Court relied on Yamini Manohar v. TKD Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, wherein it was emphasized that the facts and circumstances of the case had to be considered holistically from the stand point of the plaintiff and non-grant of interim relief at ad-interim stage would not justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The Court stated that as per the settled law, the Court while exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, was required to pursue only the plaint and documents to reach a conclusion as to whether the plaint deserved to be rejected on any of the grounds provided under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The Court carefully scrutinized the plaint and observed that the plaintiff had earned a reputation in the market, which would be diluted without interim reliefs. Considering the details regarding the proceedings of opposition undertaken by the plaintiff before the trade mark registry and the criminal proceedings initiated against the defendant, the Court found that the plaintiff could not have indulged in any clever drafting, deception, or falsehood to create a false narrative, while praying for interim reliefs.
The Court stated that in the present case, it could not be said that the plaintiff had indulged in clever drafting or falsity or deception, because the plaintiff had clearly stated the chronology of events from September 2015 onwards and also the fact that the impugned trade mark of the defendant and impugned goods came to the plaintiff’s knowledge in September, 2015. Thus, it could not be said that the plaintiff had suppressed any fact from this Court or that it had indulged in deception or falsity while claiming interim relief.
The Court opined that the fact that more than eight years had elapsed between September 2015 to August 2023, could not be a ground to ipso facto conclude that the plaintiff could not contemplate urgent interim reliefs. The Court also opined that the question of delay and its effect on entitlement of interim relief to the plaintiff, cannot be relevant for the limited enquiry of finding as to whether on the basis of the material on record, the plaintiff could indeed contemplated urgent interim relief while filing the present suit. The Court stated that the defendant was not justified in claiming that the plaintiff could not be said to be contemplate urgent interim reliefs and that it must necessarily exhaust the remedy of pre institution mediation. In the present case, the plaintiff has given details of the manner in which the defendant refuted the rights of the plaintiff, despite registered trademarks in the plaintiff’s favour and in that context, the plaintiff had indeed contemplated urgent interim relief while filing the present suit.
Hence, in light of the pleadings in the plaint, the documents filed and the pleadings in the application for interim reliefs, the Court held that the plaintiff had made out enough grounds to demonstrate that it does contemplate urgent interim reliefs, thereby showing that the plaint could not be rejected as being barred by Section 12-A of the Act. Consequently, the Court rejected the contentions made on behalf of the defendants and dismissed the application.
[Chemco Plastic Industries (P) Ltd. v. Chemco Plast, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1607, decided on 10-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Rashmin Khandekar a/w Anand Mohan, Maitri Asher, Ishaan K. Paranjape, i/b. W. S. Kane & Co.
For the Respondent: Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, a/w Hiren Kamod, Pratik Pawar, Siddhesh Pradhan, Meher Misri, and Anees Patel i/b. J. Sagar Associates
