ALLIED NIPPON LIMITED Vs. ALLIED MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants against whom on 30.4.1999 learned Single Judge while issuing summons in the suit granted an ex parte order of injunction restraining them, their employees, officials, representatives, dealers and stockists from infringing trade mark and trade name "Allied" in respect of automobile parts except brake-linings and clutch facings and further restraining them from using colour scheme, get-up, etc. on their cartons and packing material and also from passing off their goods except brake linings and clutch facings as those of the plaintiff.

(2.) The defendants/appellants instead of approaching the learned Single Judge by moving an application under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure have challenged the order on the ground that no ex parte order of injunction ought to have been granted. It is stated that number of circumstances as have been enumerated in the grounds of appeal, if taken into consideration, are sufficient enough to demonstrate that plaintiff has wilfully concealed material facts and made deliberate mis-statements of facts dis-entitling it to the grant of injunction.

(3.) The appeal came up for consideration before us on 10.5.1999 on which date we heard learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondent.