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

1961 Supreme(AP) 32

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI
Western India Match Co., Ltd., Madras - Appellant
Versus
Haji Abbas Hussain Mullah Ehsan Ali - Respondent
Decided On : 02-17-61

The City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge, has jurisdiction to try a suit under the Trade Marks Act, as it is not a Court inferior to the City Civil Court presided over by the Chief Judge.

Headnote:

TRADE MARKS ACT - JURISDICTION - CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD - WHETHER ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY SUIT UNDER THE ACT - SECTION 73 OF THE ACT - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

A suit was instituted under the Trade Marks Act in the Court of the First Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which had jurisdiction over Hyderabad city. Later, the two cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad were combined into a single unit under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, with two presiding officers in the grade of District Judge. The Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, passed an order in the suit, and the plaintiff filed a revision petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge, had jurisdiction to try the suit under the Trade Marks Act. It interpreted section 73 of the Act, which bars the institution of a suit in any Court inferior to a District Court, to mean that the suit was properly instituted in the Court of the First Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was then a District Court. The court further held that the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge, was not a Court inferior to the City Civil Court presided over by the Chief Judge, as both courts were of coordinate jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge, had jurisdiction to try a suit under the Trade Marks Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 73 of the Trade Marks Act to mean that the suit was properly instituted in the Court of the First Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was then a District Court. It further held that the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, presided over by the Additional Chief Judge, was not a Court inferior to the City Civil Court presided over by the Chief Judge, as both courts were of coordinate jurisdiction.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the lower court. It directed the lower court to proceed expeditiously with the trial of the suit.

( 1 ) THE question that arises for decision in this case is whether the city Civil Court, Hyderabad, whose presiding officer is the Additional Chief Judge, city Civil Court, has jurisdiction to try a suit instituted under the Trade Marks Act (V of 1940 ).

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted on 9th August, 1954 under the Trade Marks Act in the Court of the First Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which had jurisdiction then over the Hyderabad city only. It is common ground that the suit was properly instituted in that Court and that it was the only Court in which it could have been instituted. But under the scheme of reorganisation of the Courts, the Government issued a notification combining the two cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad into a single unit under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and also prescribed the strength of its officers. The relevant part of the G. O. is as- follows :- "government OF ANDHRA PRADESH abstract. Courts-Civil and Criminal-Judicial set-up in Andhra Pradesh-Revision and reorganisation- orders-Issued. HOME (COURTS-B) DEPARTMENT. G. O. Ms. No. 444 Dated 14th March, 1958. . Read the following :- 1. G. O. Ms. No. 2110, Home dated i8th December, 1957, read also : 1. From the Registrar, High Court, ROC. No. 3302/56-B, Special, dated 17th July, 1957. 2. From the Inspector-General of Police, FOC. No. 1695/57 dated 20th December, 1957. 3. From the Deputy Registrar, High Court, D. O. No. 3305/56-8-1, dated 22nd February, 1958.

( 3 ) THE Government have had under consideration for sometime past, the question of introducing a uniform judicial set-up in the Telangana and the Andhra area of the State and re. organising the judiciary in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The proposals sent up to the High Court have been examined in detail in consultation with the Inspector-General of Police and the following orders are issued :-

( 4 ) THE proposal of the High Court that there should be common Courts for the twin cities of hyderabad and Secunderabad is approved. The new set-up for the administration of civil and criminal justice in the two cities in future will be as follows :- civil Courts. (i) (a) City Civil Court.-The two cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad should be combined into a single unit under the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This Court should have a strength of the following officers to start with :- 1. One Chief Judge of the grade of District Judge ; 2. One Additional Judge of the grade of District Judge ; 3. Four Additional Judges of the grade of Sub-Judges ; 4. Three Additional Judges of the grade of Munsif-Magistrates.

( 5 ) THE jurisdiction of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court and Additional Judges in the grade of Sub- judges who will be having unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction, is extended over the area now comprised within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Hyderabad district. The six Munsifs in the said area will be under the appellate jurisdiction and control of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court and will dispose of cases triable by Munsifs.

( 6 ) THE officers of the grade of the Sub-Judges should be invested with unlimited ordinary original civil jurisdiction as in Andhra and officers of the grade of Munsifs should be invested with pecuniary jurisdiction upto Rs. 5,000. " on 28th March, 1958, another G. O. Ms. No. 555 was passed in partial modification of the G. O. Ms. No. 444. The material part of it is as follows :- "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Hyderabad Civil Courts act, 1954 (Hyderabad Act XXXVI of 1954), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that with effect on and from the 1st April, 1958, the areas specified in the schedule to this Notification shall be deemed to be a district within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 7 ) AS a result, the Court of the District Judge of Hyderabad and the District Judge of secunderabad were abolished and a district within the juri






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