C. SIDDESWARAN Vs. R. SHANMUGHAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the defendant in the suit against the judgment of Maharajan, J., granting a decree: (a) for injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's patent No. 67546 and patent for addition No. 90265 during the continuance thereof; and (b) directing the defendant to produce into Court the infringing gram frying machine in his possession for the purpose of destruction of the infringing parts of his machine and the return of the non -infringing parts to the defendant, after the destruction of the infringing parts. The plaintiff is carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of parched Bengal gram and other articles at Dindigul. For the purpose of frying Bengal gram and breaking it into dhalls, the plaintiff invented art automatic machine. The plaintiff registered the patent of the machine as No. 67546 on 8th February, 1961 under the provisions of the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The plaintiff was using the patented machine for the manufacture of parched Bengal gram. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant, who is carrying on business as grain dealer and fried gram merchant at Madras, was using an automatic machine containing the patented features invented by the plaintiff for roasting Bengal gram. As the plaintiff's notices to the defendant to desist from using the automatic machine failed, he came forward with the suit. The plea of the defendant was that the machinery was manufactured by him by using his own ingenuity and skill and that he was not aware that the invention of the plaintiff was registered as a patent. He denied that he was using the automatic machine having the patented features invented by the plaintiff.

(2.) MAHARAJAN , J., who tried the suit, upheld the validity of the plaintiff's patent. He found that the defendant had infringed the patent which the plaintiff is entitled to. The learned Judge fixed the damages payable by the defendant to the plaintiff at Rs. 12,000. He further granted an order of injunction restraining him from infringing the plaintiff's patent No. 67545 and patent for addition No. 90265 during the continuance thereof. He also directed the defendant to produce the infringing machinery for being disposed of.