UAS PHARMACEUTICALS PTY LTD Vs. AJANTHA PHARMA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PENDING suit for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner passing off their dermatological products including a sun screen cream by name 'sUNSTOP" as those of the plaintiffs and for various other reliefs, the plaintiffs have come up with an application in O.A. No. 15 of 2008, seeking an interim order of injunction of a similar nature.

(2.) ON 5.1.2008, this Court ordered notice to the respondent. After service of notice, the respondent has come up with two applications in A. No. 2677 of 2678 of 2008, seeking an interim stay of further, proceedings in the application for injunction and in the suit respectively, under Section 10 C.P.C.. on the ground that the respondent/defendant had already instituted a suit in C.S. No. 2420 of 2007 on the file of the High Court of Delhi against the applicants herein for passing off in respect of the very same trade mark and products.

(3.) IN solar as the other application A. No. 2677 of 2008 praying for interim stay of further proceedings in O.A. No. 15 of 2008 is concerned, it is seen that the under Section 10 of the Code is only to the Court proceeding with the trial of the and not with the hearing of any interlocutory applications. This is clear even from plain language of Section 10. It merely says "no Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit." The Section does not contemplate a freezing of the entire proceedings. The logic behind the same is simple. Pending suit, any of the parties to the litigation may die and a period of limitation is prescribed for bringing on record the legal representatives of such a party. Even such applications cannot be filed it Section 10 is understood to mean a paralysis of the entire proceedings. Moreover, the rejection of an application for interim relief in the former suit, would not necessarily result in the grant of an interim relief to the opposite party. That opposite party may have to seek an interim relief, in his own suit, which may be the subsequent suit. If Section 10 is held as a bar, a defendant succeeding in getting the interim application of the plaintiff dismissed in the former suit, would be left with no remedy to seek an interim relief in his favour in the subsequent suit. If Section 10 is held as a bar, a defendant succeeding in getting the interim application of the plaintiff dismissed in the former suit, would be left with no remedy to seek an interim relief in his favour in the subsequent suit instituted by him.