Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2036
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
AJANTA TRANSISTOR CLOCK MANUFACTURING CO. & ORS. - Petitioners
Vs.
AJANTA LIMITED & ANR. - Respondents
O.M.P.(Comm) No.151/2016
Decided On : 18-05-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. with Mr. T. Sundar Ramanathan & Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, Adv.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Family settlement - Admission - Award - Legality of - Mark AJANTA in respect of clocks and time pieces was provided to the respondents - Admission by the petitioners with regard to different brand name used by respondent - Respondents were using the expression since 2004 within the knowledge of the petitioners - If the petitioners had to use the expression QUARTZ, it could have been clarified in the MOU - Advantage of copyright registration does not help the petitioners - No protection under the copyright is granted for titles of the mark - Once the mark is given in compliance of MOU, the petitioners are not entitled to seek injunction - Sole Arbitrator has examined each and every aspect - Arbitral Tribunal's approach is not arbitrary - Award does not suffer from any infirmity - Objections are dismissed.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Setting aside of award - Sole Arbitrator has examined each and every aspect of the matter who after hearing both the parties and considering evidence has given his findings which are reasonable, logical and in unbiased manner - Once it is found that the Arbitral Tribunal's approach is not arbitrary, the chances of interference are very bleak - Award does not suffer from any infirmity - Objections dismissed.
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29 - Denial of protection of trade mark - Injunction - Once the mark is given in compliance of MOU and the respondents were using the expression since 2004, the petitioners are not entitled to seek injunction against the respondents who would otherwise be entitled to take the benefit of concurrent user as the said user was within the knowledge of the petitioners from the very beginning - Objections dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for setting aside the arbitral award dated 19th January, 2016 passed by learned Sole Arbitrator Justice R.C. Lahoti (former Chief Justice of India).
2. When the matter was listed before the Court on 2nd May, 2016, on limited point the arguments were addressed by the petitioners’ counsel.
3. The said arguments were refuted by Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, who argued that none of the grounds is available to the petitioners to challenge the award in which each and every aspect of the matter has been discussed. There is no scope of interference within the scheme of Section 34 of the Act. Since the award passed is detailed one, therefore, the order was reserved.
4. Facts of the case as per pleadings and evidence of the parties have been narrated by the learned sole Arbitrator in paras 2.1 to 2.46 which are undisputed and the same are reproduced here as under:
“2.1 Although there are companies, firms and individuals, arrayed as parties and also figuring in the pleadings and evidence (oral and documentary) brought on record by the parties but in substance the whole dispute is more or less in the nature of a family feud. It is, therefore, considered appropriate to set out a chart showing the relationship of the parties and concerned business entities. The same is done as under.
Family Tree and Structure for Respondent No.1 Firm
| Odhavji Ravjibhai
Patel
|
Has 4 sons
| Vasantbhai | Pravinbhai 1971 as minor (Claimant No.2 MD of Claimant 1 | Jaysukhbhai (Resp.2) 1971 as minor 1977 working Partner | Ashokbhai |
2.2 Aside from Respondent No.1 Firm three other companies had also started functioning:
| Ellora Time Pvt. Ltd. 1989 renamed as Ajanta Ltd. (2006) (Claimant No.1.) | Ajanta Watch Ltd. Renamed as Ajanta India Ltd. (1992) | Ajanta Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (1994) Renamed as Ajanta Manufacturing Ltd. (2004) (Respondent No.5) |
2.3 Respondent No.1 Firm had 3 (three) groups of families:
| Manubhai & Family | Raghavbhai & Family | Odhavjibhai & Family |
2.4 There is a history behind. The facts relating thereto do not call for any adjudication strictosensuin these proceedings. However, the historical feats have been brought before the Tribunal in very many details by both the parties. By and large the facts and events comprising this historical backdrop are not in dispute. Though there may be a little difference in approach of the contending parties in the manner in which they are put forth or narrated, the same are being set out in the succeeding paragraphs by way of introductory facts leading to the present litigation.
2.5 ATCMC, the Respondent No.1 firm was set up in 1971 by Mr. Odhavji Ravjibhai Patel along with his friends and relatives. The said firm stared manl1facturing wall clocks and time pieces using trademark “Ajanta”, a name adopted from the famous Ajanta caves in Maharashtra. When the firm was constituted, claimant No.2 and Respondent No.2 were minors, admitted to the benefits of partnership. The Claimant No.2 attained majority on 28.12.1971 and become a partner in the firm. In 1971, the firm started manufacturing battery operated wall clocks with around 10-15 employees and with monthly production capacity of around 100 pieces. In the year 1977, Respondent No.2 became a working partner of the firm. With passage of time, the turnover of Respondent No.1 comprising manufacturing wall clocks increased to approximately Rs.100 crores. Subsequently, due to disputes and differences, the business of the firm closed down somewhere in the year 2000.
