DINESH BASTIMAL JAIN Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner beseeches this Court to punish the respondents for having committed criminal contempt by misusing the process of the law. The relevant facts to be noted are that the respondents filed a suit on the Original Side of this Court which was registered as CS(OS) No.672/2004 praying therein that the defendant M/s.Pioneer Products, the sole proprietary firm of the petitioner be restrained from selling goods under the trademark 'VOV' or any other mark deceptively similar thereto. As per the averments made in the plaint, the respondents claimed proprietary interest in the trademark 'VO5'.

(2.) Petitioner alleges that vide order dated 27.08.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that Courts at Delhi have no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, on account of the plaintiffs of the suit not pleading carrying on business through self or through a distributor at Delhi. While returning the plaint it was directed that the same should be filed in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Thane. It is pleaded by the petitioner that instead of filing the plaint in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Thane, the respondents, abused the process of law, by filing a suit against the petitioner claiming same relief (as was claimed in CS(OS) No.672/2004), which subsequent suit was registered as Suit No.1389/2010 in the Court of the learned District Judge, (South), Delhi. It is pleaded that without disclosing the earlier suit filed in the year 2004 and the order passed by the Court therein, the respondents obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the petitioner. Claiming the filing of the second suit to be not only an abuse of the process of the law; relying upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Satish Khosla vs. M/s.Eli Lilly Ranbaxy Ltd. & Anr., 1998 71 DLT 1 it is pleaded that the filing of the second suit amounts to the commission of a criminal contempt. Prayer made is to punish the respondents and vacate the ex-parte injunction obtained by the respondents.

(3.) Before dealing with the defence raised by the respondents, it assumes importance to note that the petitioner sought the injunction granted to be vacated by filing FAO No.344/2011, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2011 by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pray therein that the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted be vacated. The petitioner did so and filed a written statement taking such defence as was available and also sought vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted against it, but failed in its endeavour, inasmuch as vide order dated 01.10.2011, the learned Additional District Judge-I confirmed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction and did not return the plaint. The said order passed by the learned Trial Judge has been challenged by the petitioner by way of FAO No.480/2011 and the said appeal is pending.