SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 475

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. JAIN and H.L. DATTU
JEFFREY J. DIERMEIER & ANR. -- APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. -- RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1079 OF 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 898 of 2009)
Decided on: MAY 14, 2010.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Jurisdiction u/s 482 should be used sparingly and with circumspection. (Para 19)

       AIR 1960 SC 866; (2001) 8 SCC 570 – Relied upon

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 499, Tenth Exception – Good faith and public good – Party invoking Tenth Exception has to establish the same – By preponderance of probabilities. (Para 32)

       (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Respondent alleging offence of defamation under section 500 IPC – Appellant invoking Tenth Exception to section 499 IPC – The published notice whether in good faith and public good is a matter of fact – cannot be decided at the threshold – High Court rightly refusing to exercise jurisdiction u/s 482. (Para 33, 34)

       1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335; (1996) 6 SCC 263; (1999) 3 SCC 134; (1981) 3 SCC 208; (2001) 5 SCC 156; (2002) 9 SCC 708; (1992) 3 SCC 317; (2008) 3 SCC 574; (2008) 3 SCC 753; (1964) 2 S.C.R. 73; (1997) 2 SCC 507; (2003) 4 SCC 705 – Referred

       

       Facts of the case:

       In the year 1985, on being approached by the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India ("ICFAI"), respondent No.2 herein, having its office at Kolkata, CFA Institute entered into a licence agreement with them to conduct its CFA program in India.

       CFA Institute issued a notice of termination of its licence with the said respondent.

       In the year 2004, CFA Institute filed a Civil Suit in the High Court of Delhi for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from using the trade marks, services, service marks or trade name CFA, Chartered Financial Analyst, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI or any other name or mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to these marks and passing off CFA Institute Programs or business as that of CFA Institute.

       On 30th January 2007, respondent No.2, through its sponsored University in Tripura - The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Tripura issued an advertisement inviting applications for fresh enrolments for award of "CFA" certification. On 12th February 2007, CFA Institute issued a public notice under the caption "A Word of Caution to the Indian Investment Community"

       Alleging that the said public notice was defamatory within the meaning of Section 499 of the IPC, respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the appellants. The trial court took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the summoning order, the appellants preferred the afore-noted petition before the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court has dismissed the said petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       High Court rightly did not exercise jurisdiction u/s 482, Cr PC.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

D.K. JAIN, J.:

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment dated 18th November 2008 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.R. No. 523 of 2008. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants under Section 482 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") seeking quashing of a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 in this appeal, for an offence under Section 500 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC").

3. The facts, material for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, may be stated thus: Appellant No.1 is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chartered Financial Analysts Institute (hereinafter referred to as "CFA Institute"), incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, United States. Appellant No.2 is the President of the Indian Association of Investment Professionals, who is a member of the society of CFA Institute. CFA Institute is a non stock corporation and confers the designation of Chief Financial Analyst ("CFA" for short) upon its members who fulfil a minimum professional criterion. CFA certification is considered to be a definitive standard for professional competence.

4. In the year 1985, on being approached by the Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (for short "ICFAI"), respondent No.2 herein, a registered society, having its office at Kolkata, CFA Institute entered into a licence agreement with them to conduct its CFA program in India. The agreed arrangement continued for quite some time. However, realising that respondent No.2 was not adhering to the required standards and quality in the said program, CFA Institute decided to wean off its arrangement with ICFAI - respondent No.2. Since, in the meanwhile, respondent No.2 was attempting to get the trademarks of CFA Institute registered in India, in the year 1997, CFA Institute issued a notice of termination of its licence with the said respondent. On receipt of the said notice, respondent No.2 filed a declaratory suit before the District Courts in Hyderabad, seeking a declaration regarding the change of their name "ICFAI" and their use of the designation "CFA". However, they did not succeed in getting any interim or final relief in the said suit. In the year 2004, CFA Institute filed a Civil Suit [C.S.(OS) No.210 of 2004] in the High Court of Delhi for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from using the trade marks, services, service marks or trade name CFA, Chartered Financial Analyst, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI or any other name or mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to these marks and passing off CFA Institute Programs or business as that of CFA Institute. Vide Order dated 4th August 2006, the High Court passed the following order by way of interim relief:

"30. In view of the above, I allow the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and restrain the defendants, during the pendency of the suit from using any of the trademarks or service marks CFA, Chartered Financial Analyst, The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India, ICFA and ICFAI or any other name or mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to these marks and from passing off their programmes or business as that of the plaintiffs. However, this order of injunction will not come into effect till the end of current academic session of the CFA Programme run by the defendants. Nor will anything said herein will mean final expression of opinion of this Court." [Emphasis supplied]

5. On 30th January 2007, respondent No.2, through its sponsored University in Tripura - The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India University, Tripura (hereinafter referred to as "the University"), issued an advertisement inviting applications for fresh enrolments for award of "CFA" certification. According to

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top