OFFICINE LOVATO S P A STRADD COMUNALE CASTLE CHENNAI Vs. AJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL TRADING AS S A ENGINEERS OLD GHAS MANDI AMBALA CITY HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the former application, this court granted leave on 23.06.2004 under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent to the plaintiff to file the suit before this court. IN the latter application, the defendants are before this court to have the relief already granted revoked. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) THE plaintiff is before this on it's original side complaining infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark and for consequential reliefs. To bring the suit before this court, the plaintiff relies upon the following causes of action:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the defendants strenuously contended that the plaintiff, having failed to comply with sections 592 to 597 of the Companies Act, cannot bring a suit before this court, since the plaintiff is disabled from doing so under section 599 of the Companies Act. Chapter XI of the Companies Act is made applicable to foreign companies. Under section 592, foreign companies having a place of business within India, within 30 days of the establishment of the place of business, deliver to the Registrar for registration certain documents and details. Under section 593, if any alteration is made or occurs in any of the records mentioned therein, then also the company shall, within the prescribed time, deliver to the Registrar the particulars of the alterations. Section 594 deals with accounts of a foreign company while section 595 casts an obligation on the foreign company to give the details mentioned in that section. Sections 596 and 597 speak about service on foreign company and the office where the documents have to be delivered. Section 598 deals with penalties. Section 599 of the Companies Act provides that if any foreign company fails to comply with the requirements of sections 592 to 598 of the Companies Act, then such failure would not affect the validity of any contract, dealing or transaction, entered into by the company or it's liability to be sued in respect thereof. In the same breath, section 599 provides that in the event of such failure, the company shall not be entitled to bring any suit claiming any set off, make any counter or institute any legal proceedings in respect of any such contract, dealing or transaction until it has complied with the provisions of this part. The arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants is that, since the plaintiff is not shown to have complied with Sections 592 to 598 of the Companies Act, the plaintiff is disabled from bringing the present suit. I am unable to appreciate this contention. In my opinion, such a bar on the right of the company would come into operation only when the company wants to bring a suit on a contract, dealing or transaction against the other person to the contract, dealing or transaction, until it has complied with the provisions of sections 592 to 598 of the Companies Act. In the same breath, the company also would be disabled from pleading a set off or counter claim when it faces a suit initiated by a party to the contract, dealing or transaction. On the facts of this case, the plaintiff is not before this court claiming any relief on a contract, dealing or transaction against the defendants. But on the other hand, the plaintiff is only complaining about the infringement of it's trade mark. Since I have decided against the defendants on the above two points, I am not inclined to decide the other point i.e., whether the plaintiff is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this court and the same is left open.