Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Shogun Organics Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Gaur Hari Guchhait - Respondent
CS(COMM) 201 of 2017
Decided On : 16-06-2020
Repeated applications without full disclosure abuse the court process, leading to dismissal and costs against the party not acting in good faith.
Headnote:(A) Patent Act - Section 48 - Application for the sale of unsold stock of D-Trans Alletherin - The Court emphasized the abuse of process in filing repeat applications without disclosure. The Plaintiff's request to withdraw the application shows insincerity as multiple applications seek the same relief. It ruled that the Defendant is not obligated to sell exclusively to the Plaintiff, affirming the autonomy of trade for the Defendant. (Paras 4, 5, 12, and 13)
(B) Principle of Abuse of Process - The conduct in filing repeated applications without full disclosure contravenes the fundamental tenets of judicial honesty and leads to a dismissal with costs. (Paras 5, 13, 11)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff filed an application to compel the Defendant to sell excess stock at a specified price, following a previous judgement that required accounting for profits.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around the propriety of filing multiple applications regarding the same subject and the lack of disclosure of ongoing proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The repeated applications reflect a lack of bona fides and an abuse of process, justifying a dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court opined that the Defendant's right to sell goods is paramount; the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights to the stock without reasonable basis.
Result: Application dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. chronology of patent case and applications. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. concerns about multiple applications and non-disclosure. (Para 5 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on plaintiff's conduct. (Para 8 , 11 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
I.A.4414/2020 in CS(COMM) 201/2017
1. This hearing has been held by video-conferencing.
2. In application being I.A.4414/2020, listed today the prayer is:
"a) pass an order directing Defendant No. 2 to sell unused/unsold 4520 kgs stock of D-Trans Alletherin to the Plaintiff at Rs.4,330 per kilogram."
3. The present suit for infringement of patent no. IN 236630 was decreed on 14th August 2020. A permanent injunction was granted along with a direction to render accounts of profits and payment of 5% of the sale value as compensation/loss of profits to the Plaintiff. Appeal against the said judgement/decree was dismissed on 11th October 2019. Vide order dated 29th January 2020, the Ld. Single Judge, after disclosure of accounts by the Defendants directed the payment of Rs.6,77,91,143/- as loss of profits and Rs.12,28,000/- as costs.
4. Thereafter an application being I.A. no. 3946/2020 was filed by Defendant No.2 seeking permission to sell some `unsold stock' to the tune of 4250 kgs. Arguments in the said application were heard on 9th June, 2020 and the matter was reserved for orders. On 11th June 2020, orders were passed in the said application. At the time when the matter was listed for pronouncing orders, the submission that the Defendant no.2 ought to sell the unsold stock to the Plaintiff was made by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. Thus, it is inexplicable as to why, for the same relief, another application has now been filed.
5. At this stage, ld. counsel for the Plaintiff - Ms. Rajeshwari H. seeks permission to withdraw the application.
This Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff ought not to be permitted to withdraw this application, inasmuch as the chronology of events in this case shows the present application is a complete abuse of process.
6. I.A. 3946/2020 was first listed before a ld. Single Judge of this Court on 21st May, 2020. The said application was thereafter placed before this Bench on 27th May, 2020 subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. On 27th May, 2020, the matter was heard in part and the Defendants were directed to disclose certain details of the unsold stock, on affidavit and the matter was adjourned to 9th June 2020. Two days before the said hearing, the Plaintiff filed two applications seeking discovery of certain documents. Detailed arguments were heard on all the applications on 9th June, 2020 and the matter was reserved for orders.
7. In the meantime, on 9th June, 2020, the present application being I.A.4414/2020 is stated to have been filed. In this application, there is no mention of the fact that this Court had heard the matter on merits and had reserved orders. To this, Ms. Rajeshwari submits that the application was filed prior to the hearing itself. If that was the position, there was no reason whatsoever, as to why the filing of this application was not disclosed to the Court during the hearing on 9th June 2020.
8. Orders in I.A.3946/2020 along with other pending applications were pronounced on 11th June, 2020. On the said date also, the Plaintiff did not inform the Court that the present application had been filed and was still pending.
9. The application under consideration i.e. I.A. 4414/2020 was then listed on 12th June, 2020. The ld. Single Judge before whom the said application was listed, has placed the matter to be heard today, before this Bench.
10. When a specific question was asked to ld. counsel for the Plaintiff as to why multiple applications are being filed in respect of the same subject matter and why no disclosure was made while the matter is being continuously heard, no answer is forthcoming.
11. At the commencement of the hearing today, ld. counsel for the Plaintiff, after ha
