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

2018 Supreme(Del) 1788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, J.
Louis Vuitton Malletier - Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Omi & Anr. - Respondents
CCP(O) 10 of 2018 IN CS(COMM) 291 of 2018
Decided On : 07-08-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pravin Anand with Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro and Mr. Shamim Nooreyezdan, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Nitin Mehta, Advocate.

Perjury by the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 constituted contempt in the face of the Court, invoking the procedure under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Headnote:

Contempt of Court - Trademark Infringement - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c), Section 14 - Section 15

Fact of the Case:

The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, dilution and tarnishment, damages, delivery up etc. by the petitioner/plaintiff Louis Vuitton against the respondents/defendants for the sale of counterfeit products bearing the petitioner’s/plaintiff’s registered trade mark and logo. The respondent no.2/defendant no.2 made false statements under oath, denying the sale of branded goods, which were contradicted by the Local Commissioner’s reports.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 had perjured himself by making false statements under oath, which interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructed the administration of justice. The Court invoked its contempt jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Issues: The issues involved perjury by the respondent no.2/defendant no.2, the authority of the Court, and interference with the due course of judicial proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that perjury by the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 constituted contempt in the face of the Court, invoking the procedure under Section 14 of the Act. The Court appreciated the truthful and honest stand taken by the respondent's counsel.

Final Decision: The Court sentenced the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 to one month’s simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND LEADING TO FILING OF CONTEMPT PETITION AND DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT

1. The present suit had been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, dilution and tarnishment, damages, delivery up etc. by the petitioner/plaintiff Louis Vuitton, which is a highly reputed company.

2. The suit was filed against the respondents/defendants for the sale of counterfeit products bearing the petitioner’s/plaintiff’s registered trade mark and logo on 29th August, 2013.

3. An ex-parte ad interim injunction was passed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and a local commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the respondent/defendant on 30th August, 2013. The local commission was conducted on 03rd September, 2013, wherein infringing goods were found at the premises of the respondents/defendants. The relevant portion of the Local Commissioner’s report is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"3. That on reaching the said premises at around 2 PM, the undersigned met Mr. Manni Malhotra, an employer of the proprietor of Shop No. 46, Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi -110 005. The undersigned apprised Mr. Manni Malhotra of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court and served upon him a certified true copy of the order dated 30.8.2013. Mr. Manni Malhotra refused to sign the order, informing the undersigned that the order pertained to Mr. Omi. However, he did not divulge the name of the proprietor. He was told that as the address of the premises was correct the name of the proprietor did not matter. He also stated that the address of theses premises was Stall No. 46, Ghaffar Market, Karol Bagh and not Shop No. 46. However, his protest went unheeded since, as soon as the undersigned reached the shop along with the plaintiff's counsel, infringing goods were found.

6. Mr. Manni Malhotra refused to sign the inventory report and the "On the spot" proceedings and told me and Mr. Biala, that we could take the goods away, but he would not allow the goods to be handed over to him on superdarinama after being sealed. However, when we got ready to seal and take away the goods as highlighted in the inventory report away, Mr. Manni Malhotra, changed his mind, accepted a copy of the order, gave his acknowledgement on it (Annexed as Annexure A), and also allowed us to seal the goods on superdarinama. Accordingly, the goods have been seized on superdarinama and handed over to the Mr. Manni Malhotra. (Copy of Superdarinama annexed as Annexure C)."

(emphasis supplied)

4. The respondent no.2/defendant no.2, i.e., Mr. Abhishek Malhotra alias Mr. Manni Malhotra in his written statement filed on 05th October, 2013, stated that the goods were not seized from his premises, but from respondent No.1’s/defendant no. 1’s premises. The respondent no.1/ defendant no.1 in his written statement stated that the goods were seized from respondent no. 2’s / defendant no.2’s premises.

5. To ascertain the truth, the respondents no.1 and 2/defendants no.1 and 2 were examined by the Court under Order X CPC on 20th February, 2018. In his statement under oath, the respondent no. 2/ defendant no.2 stated that he had been working from the Shop No. 46-1, Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "suit premises") for the last three years. He also stated that he dealt in shades and eyewear only and that he had never sold any branded products. The said statement is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"Statement of Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, S/o Sh. Sweet Malhotra, R/o 1-7609/3, Gali No.6-8, East Gorakh Park, Delhi-110032

On S.A.

My nick name is Mani Malhotra. I am 12th pass. I passed out from school in 2009. I have brought with me my Aadhar Card (a photocopy of the same is taken on record).

I worked with Mr. Gulati Opticals in Karol Bagh for about two years between 2009 and 2011.

My father had a Kerosene Oil Depot which was closed about the time I completed my Class 12.

I had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from one Mr. Va













































































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