VOGEL MEDIA INTERNATIONAL Vs. JASU SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS ORDER WILL GOVERN THE DISPOSAL OF IAS NOS.3762/2004, 5668/2004 NOVED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS AND IA NO.6730/2004 MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS. BY WAY OF IA NO.3762/2004, THE PLAINTIFF HAS PRAYED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING THE AMENDED PLAINT PURSUANT TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL VALUE OF THE SUIT AND FOR PERMITTING THE SAID AMENDMENT TO BE INCORPORATED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT. VIDE IA NO.5668/2004 A PRAYER HAS BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF TO CONFIRM THE CONTINUANCE OF THE AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION DATED 1.5.2001 IN THE PRESENT SUIT UNLESS IT IS SPECIFICALLY VACATED BY A REASONED ORDER UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 CPC OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO MAKE AN ORDER OF STATUS QUO AS ON 30.4.2004 I.E. THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT ORDERING RETURN OF THE PLAINT TO THE PLAINTIFF, TO BE OBSERVED BY THE DEFENDANT TILL THE RELIEF CLAIMED ABOVE IS ADJUDICATED UPON AND DECIDED. A DIRECTION IS ALSO SOUGHT THAT THE PRESENT SUIT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONTINUED FROM THE STAGE ON WHICH IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1999. VIDE IA NO.6730/2004 A PRAYER HAS BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF ORDER VII RULE 10A CPC AND DIRECT THE REGISTRAR TO MAINTAIN THE RECORD OF THE PRESENT SUIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(2.) FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE APPLICATIONS, IT IS NECESSARY TO RECAPITULATE THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. THE PLAINTIFFS HAD FILED A SUIT FOR GRANT OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING PASSING OF INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES, DELIVERY AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ON 20.3.2001 IN THIS COURT WHICH WAS REGISTERED AS CS(OS) NO.883/2001. ALONG WITH THE SUIT AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION (IA NO.4278/2001) UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 SEEKING AD INTERIM EX-PARTE INJUNCTION WAS ALSO FILED. THE SUIT AND THE APPLICATION CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT ON 1.5.2001 AND VIDE AN ORDER OF THE EVEN DATE, THE COURT WHILE ISSUING NOTICE ON THE APPLICATION GRANTED AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE INJUNCTION RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANTS FROM ADVERTISING, PRINTING, PUBLISHING, SELLING, DISTRIBUTING OR OFFERING FOR SALE PRINTED PUBLICATIONS, ON LINE PUBLICATION ON THE INTERNET OR ANY RELATED SERVICES UNDER THE TRADEMARKS CHIP, CHIP SPECIAL OR ANY OTHER TRADEMARK WHICH IS DECEPTIVELY SIMILAR TO THE PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARK CHIP, TILL THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. LATER AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 (I.E.6655/2001) WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS FOR VACATION OF THE AD-INTERIM EX-PARTE ORDER DATED 1.5.2001. THE MATTER REMAINED PENDING IN THIS COURT AS THE PARTIES WERE NEGOTIATING FOR A SETTLEMENT. ON 7.2.2003, IT WAS REPORTED TO THE COURT THAT THE COMPROMISE TALKS HAD FAILED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE COURT DIRECTED THE DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR WRITTEN STATEMENT AND REPLIES TO THE PENDING APPLICATIONS AND PLEADINGS TO BE COMPLETED. ON 22.7.2003, WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT, THIS COURT IN VIEW OF SECTION 2 OF THE DELHI HIGH AMENDMENT (ACT), 2003, DIRECTED THAT THE MATTER BE LISTED BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR ON 5.8.2003, FOR FURTHER DIRECTIONS. ON 25.9.2003, THE JOINT REGISTRAR OBSERVED THAT THE VALUE OF THE SUIT FILED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PECULIAR JURISDICTION WAS LESS THAN RS.20 LACS AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS LIABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE DISTRICT COURTS. THE JOINT REGISTRAR IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THIS REGARD, DIRECTED THE SUIT TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, DELHI, AND PARTIES/THEIR COUNSELS WERE DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE ON 18.11.2003.

(3.) IT APPEARS THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE SUIT, THE LEARNED DISTRICT JUDGE MADE OVER THE SAME TO THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR) FOR DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE SUIT WAS ASSIGNED A FRESH NUMBER 250/03/01. ON 18.11.2003, AN APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF SEEKING AMENDMENT OF THE PLAINT FOR ENHANCING THE VALUATION OF THE SUIT TO MORE THAN RS.20 LACS. THE SAID APPLICATION WAS HEARD AND ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VIDE AN ORDER DATED 30.4.2004. BY THE SAME ORDER, THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ALSO DIRECTED THAT THE PLAINT BE RETURNED TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF TO REPRESENT IT TO THE COURT IN WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED. AS THE ORDER DATED 30.4.2004 HAS GRAVE IMPLICATIONS AND WILL BE REFERRED TO OFTEN IN THIS ORDER, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE: