MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) BY this order, I propose to decide two interlocutory applications, I. A. No. 999 of 2005 and I. A. No. 1313 of 2005. Both these applications were very hotly contested, in fact much more than I had imagined when the hearing started! The applications were heard on 8th, 13th to 15th, 21st, 26th and 27th July, 2nd and 4th August when judgment was reserved.

( 2 ) I. A. No. 999 of 2005 is an application filed by the Plaintiffs seeking an injunction restraining the defendants from directly or indirectly dealing in alcoholic beverages or any other allied goods under the trade mark Blenders Pride , while I. A. No. 1313 of 2005 is an application filed by Defendant No. 2 under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for staying trial of this suit since this Defendant had earlier instituted Suit No. 2105 of 2005 in the District court at Jalandhar, Punjab (for short the Jalandhar suit) against Seagram Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. which as per the averments made by the Plaintiffs in this Court, has merged with the Plaintiff No. 2. The identity of the contesting parties in both the suits is substantially the same. Defendant No. 2 has also alleged in its application that the other requirements of Section 10 CPC have been made out.

( 3 ) IT was agreed with learned counsel for the parties that it might be appropriate to first decide i. A. No. 1313 of 2005 and then I. A. No. 999 of 2005 may be decided, if need be. I propose to proceed as agreed. I. A. No. 1313 of 2005

( 4 ) SECTION 10 CPC reads as under:- 10. Stay of suit. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court. Explanation. The pendency of a suit in a foreign court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.

( 5 ) A plain reading of the above provision would show that the requirements of Section 10 CPC would be met (and trial of this suit should be stayed) if the matter in issue in the Jalandhar suit and this suit is directly and substantially the same the Court in Jalandhar can grant the reliefs prayed for in this suit, and the parties in the Jalandhar suit and this suit are the same. This position was accepted (for our purposes) by learned counsel for the parties in view the decision of the supreme Court in Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527. (See also Escorts construction Equipment Ltd. v. Action Construction equipment Pvt. Ltd. , 77 (1999) DLT 276 ).

( 6 ) THE first question that is asked by Section 10, and which needs an answer, is whether the issues in the jalandhar suit and this suit are the same.

( 7 ) THE reliefs claimed in the Jalandhar suit are:

A) That this Hon ble Court by a perpetual order and injunction be pleased to restrain the Defendants by themselves, their servants, representatives, agents, printers, stockists and distributors from in any manner using the trademark Blenders Pride or any other deceptively similar word/name so as to infringe the plaintiff s registered trademark Blenders Pride. b) That this Hon ble Court by a perpetual order and injunction be pleased to restrain the Defendants by themselves, their servants, representatives, agents, printers, stockists and distributors from in any manner using the trademark Blenders Pride or any other deceptively similar word/name so as to pass of or enable others to pass of the Defendants products as the products of the Plaintiff.

( 8 ) THE reliefs claimed in this suit are:

A) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document