This is an appeal against order dated 7th December, 2017, made by the learned trial Judge injuncting the appellants (original defendants) from using the artistic label “Military Santra” produced at Exh. 3/104 along with the plaint for selling country liquor, till the disposal of Copy Right Suit No. 4/2011.

2. In support of this appeal, Mr. Chitnis, learned counsel for appellants, without giving up any of the grounds raised in the appeal memo, has stressed upon the following two submissions :—

(i) That respondent (plaintiff) has made patently false statement in paragraph No. 67 of the plaint to the effect that plaintiff gained knowledge about the infringing label in the third week of February, 2011 and further, plaintiff’s representatives had not seen the infringing label and the plaintiff came to know about the infringing label only on receipt of affidavit dated 17-2-2011 filed by KAMIPL and Annexure F annexed thereto. Mr. Chitnis submits that it is crystal clear from the documents in RCS No. 3/2004 instituted by respondent-plaintiff against M/s Seven Star Distilleries, defendant, in the said suit, by way of reply to application for temporary injunction, which clearly included the label “Military Santra” of the present appellants. This reply was filed sometime in the year 2005. Mr. Chitnis submits that this means that in the year 2005 itself, respondent-plaintiff had full knowledge about the alleged infringing label. Mr. Chitnis submits that equitable relief of injunction ought to have been denied to such respondent-plaintiff on account of deliberate misstatement and suppression as well as on account of acquiescence from 2005 onwards till the date of institution of the suit in the year 2011. Mr. Chitnis submits that it is well settled that plaintiff, who seeks the equitable relief of injunction, must, of necessity, disclose all the material facts and further, not make any deliberate misstatement of facts. He submits that if this is detected, such a plaintiff, cannot be granted equitable relief of injunction. Mr. Chitnis further submits that this being a case of alleged infringement of copy right, mere publication is sufficient and issue of trade use etc. is quite irrelevant. He submits that since there was publication way back in the year 2005 and since, respondent-plaintiff had permitted such publication to go by or to continue, this is a clear case of acquiescence, on account of which, no equitable relief of temporary injunction could have been granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. He relies on M/s Power Control Appliances vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., 1994(2) SCC 448, to explain the doctrine of acquiescence and its importance in the matter of grant of injunction. Mr. Chitnis submits that this point which is now being raised by the appellants was squarely raised and argued before the learned trial Court, however, Mr. Chitnis points out, that in the impugned order, there is no consideration of this vital point. He submits that non-consideration of this vital point vitiates the impugned order, which is required to be set aside on this ground alone.

(ii) Mr. Chitnis submits that respondent-plaintiff can claim no copy right in the label “Bhingri Santra” because it is the appellants-defendants who, since the year 1975, owns the copy right in the artwork of using a device of glass of vertically rectangular label with colour combination black and white. Mr. Chitnis submits that infact such label was approved by the Commissioner for Excise in the year 1975 itself and the label “Military Santra” was nothing but an extension or adaptation of such earlier label. For this reason also Mr. Chitnis submits that trial Court erred in granting the equitable relief of injunction to respondent-plaintiff in relation to its label “Bhigri Santra”, which is nothing but an infringement of defendant’s/appellant’s copy right in the label which, it has been using since 1975. For this reason also, Mr. Chitnis submits that the impugned o