Back
AMIT BANSAL
Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dayal Agro Industries – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J.
I.A. 9763/2020 (O-VI R-17 of CPC)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs (hereinafter `Dayal Fertilizers') under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the plaint.
2. Notice in this application was issued on 22nd October, 2020 and reply has been filed on behalf of the defendants (hereinafter `Gopika Industries'). Rejoinder to the reply has also been filed on behalf of Dayal Fertilizers.
3. Counsel for Dayal Fertilizers has made the following submissions:
I. The present suit was filed on 8th February, 2017 as a suit for `passing off' alone, on the premise that a suit for trademark infringement by one registered proprietor was not maintainable against another registered proprietor. Later, this position of law was clarified by this Court in Dabur India Ltd. v. Alka Ayurvedic Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7268, and it was held that a plaintiff, who contends that the registration in favour of the defendant is invalid, has the right to sue for infringement of its mark by the said defendant.
II. Repeated assertions have been made on behalf of Dayal Fertilizers with regard to the invalidity
Amendments under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC are permissible if necessary for proper adjudication, do not change the fundamental nature of the case, and do not prejudice the other party.
Amendments should be liberally allowed to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, and the cause of action for passing off and infringement were substantially identical.
Provisions of Section 10 of the CPC are mandatory, preventing parallel litigation over identical issues to avoid conflicting verdicts.
Each act of trademark infringement constitutes a fresh cause of action, allowing the aggrieved party to file a new suit for ongoing violations.
A plaintiff cannot file multiple suits for the same cause of action concurrently in different jurisdictions; it constitutes forum shopping and is impermissible under Order II Rule 2 CPC.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
