Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 1122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MUKUL MUDGAL, J.
Schneider Electric Industries S.A. - Appellant
Versus
Telemecanique And Controls (India) Ltd. - Respondent
I.A. 6504 of 2000 in Suit No. 1919 of 99
Decided on : 27-11-2000
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.M. Singhvi and Tasneem Ahmadi, adv
For the Respondent: P. Chidambaram Parvin Anand and G. Duggal, adv
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the working of patents and the suppression of documents are crucial factors in deciding interim applications and rejection of plaints.
Headnote:
Suppression - Patent Dispute - Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 GPC - [Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 GPC] - The court discussed the suppression of material documents by the plaintiff, fabrication of documents, and working of patents by the plaintiff. The key legal provisions discussed were related to the suppression of documents and the working of patents, influencing the court's decision on the interim application.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed an application alleging suppression and fabrication of documents by the plaintiff. The plaintiff disputed the allegations and also raised concerns about the working of patents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it was not necessary to consider the defendant's pleas at that stage and that the working of patents by the plaintiff was not proven to be non-existent.
Issues: Suppression of documents, fabrication of documents, working of patents, and rejection of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the defendant's plea for rejection of the plaint could not be granted at that stage and that the working of patents by the plaintiff was not proven to be non-existent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the defendant to place additional facts and documents on record but declined the summoning of records from the Office of the Controller of Patents. The defendant's application for rejection of the plaint was not granted at that stage.
JUDGMENT :
Mukul Mudgal, J.
This application u/s 151 CPC was filed after the orders on the interim injunction IA. No. 8522/99 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 GPC, filed by the plaintiff had been reserved.
2. The principal plea in the aforesaid application is that certain documents have been suppressed from the Court. There has been fraudulent suppression and fabrication of document^ and the plaintiff has altered the records of the Controller of Patents and has not only misled this Court but the Controller of Patents. It is further stated that patents are not worked by the plaintiff. Accordingly it is prayed by the defendant in the said application to bring on record the additional facts and documents annexed as Annexures A & B and the grant the prayer in the affidavit of R.N. Khanna dated 4th July, 2000 in support of this application.
3. The prayer made in this application is as follows:-
"It is Therefore, submitted that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take on record the affidavit of Mr. R.N. Khanna dated 4th July, 2000 and permit the defendant to refer and rely on the same."
4. The prayer made in the said supporting affidavit of Mr. R.N. Khanna dated 4th of July, 2000 is as follows:-
"a. allow me to place the additional facts and the documents annexed herewith as Annexures A and B on record, and
b. summon the records of the Office of the Controller of Patents Delhi and Calcutta relating to patent numbers 170967, 172195, 171351, 172722, 174569, 174606, 177052, 172629, 172728 and 177245.
c. Allow my Company's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC being IA No. 1685 of 2000."
5. In so far as the main plea of suppression of material documents by the plaintiff from this Court is concerned, the defendant has relied upon the Agreement to Con firm dated 30.9.1997 said to be between Schneider Electric SA (and the plaintiff Schneider Electric Industries SA, the holding company) and the Deed of Assignment dated 23.8.1999, to submit that the documents have been misused by the plaintiff and are in fact fabricated and sham. The principal document under dispute is the Agree ment to Confirm dated 30.9.1997, which according to the defendant was neither filed nor mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff submits that this very document was not filed as the Contract of Contribution was already filed and it was not thought fit to file the Agreement to Confirm as it was general in nature and supplemental and ancillary to the contract of contribution. Furthermore the registered patents and designs transferred to the plaintiff company by the contract of contribution were 42 in number and the present suit is filed only for 22 items.
6. Furthermore in so far as the main suit is concerned it is the application (IA. 8522/99) under Order XXXIX Rules 1-2 CPC which was heard by this Court. Even though the defendant has filed a comprehensive reply to the aforesaid application for interim injunction, the defendant itself has yet to file the written statement in the case. It has merely filed its reply to the aforesaid interim application.
7. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has yet to file its replication and even if some grievance was raised in the written statement, while completing the pleadings the documents complained of could have been brought on record in the replication and I am of the view that at this stage it is not necessary for me to consider these pleas raised in the defendant's application. These pleas can only be considered after evidence has been led at the time of final hearing of the suit.
8. In so far as the plea of the applicant/defendant regarding fabrication of documents made in the application is concerned, the plaintiff's case is that merely because the documents are not filed by the plaintiff Along with the plaint it cannot inevitably lead to a conclusion that the same are fabricated. The plaintiff submits that there is no need for the plaintiff to fabricate any documents as all these documents are executed with its own
