Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sourabh Jinal - Respondent
CS(COMM) 247 of 2019
Decided On : 03-01-2022
Procedural violations may be overlooked if they do not prejudice the opposing party, favoring substantial justice in trademark litigation.
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections related to trademark registration and infringement - The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against trade mark infringement and passing-off actions regarding 'JINDAL', seeking damages and declaration of 'well-known' status. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1(3) - The court emphasized that documents not introduced with the written statement cannot be produced later without approval and must demonstrate good cause. (Paras 11-14)
(C) Substantial Justice - The court acknowledged the Supreme Court's precedent that procedural hurdles should not impede the pursuit of substantial justice. The application to introduce additional documents was permitted on this basis. (Paras 14-15)
Facts of the case:
The suit involved a trademark dispute over the mark 'JINDAL', with defendant claiming rights to 'Sourabh Jindal' and forming an LLP. The plaintiff opposed the introduction of additional documents not disclosed previously.
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the introduction of additional documents, asserting that the procedural violations did not prejudice the plaintiff.
Issues: The significant issues revolved around the admissibility of additional documents and the defendants' rights in their trade mark usage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled favorably on the application to introduce new documents, invoking the principle to prioritize substantial justice over strict procedural adherence.
Result: The application of defendant No.1 was allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's request for trademark protection (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning submission of documents (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's considerations on document admissibility (Para 8 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. supreme court's stance on procedural justice (Para 14) |
| 5. approval of document submission and case progression (Para 15 , 16) |
ORDER
I.A. No. 3510/2021 (under Order VIII Rule 1 (3) CPC)
1. The captioned suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark "JINDAL", passing-off, dilution and tarnishment of the trademark; damages; rendition of accounts; delivery up; declaration of 'well-known' status etc.
2. The present application has been preferred by applicant/defendant No.1-Sourabh Jindal to bring on record certain additional documents. The reasons for filing this application have been enumerated in Para-4 of this application, which read as under:
"4. During Pendency of the suit and after filing of the written statement and the documents, following developments have taken place:
(i) Defendant No. 1 has got registration of the trademark "Sourabh Jindal" with logo in class 16 and 35.
(ii) Mr. Dheeraj Aggarwal and Mr. Praful B. Bhatt joined the business with defendant No.1 and have created a Limited Liability Partnership company in the name of Sourabh Jindal LLP from 14th August, 2020. Now the business of Defendant No.1 is being run by three of the Partners In the name of limited liability Partnership company called SOURABH JINDAL LLP with all its assets and liabilities from 14th August, 2020. The plaintiff is free to take appropriate steps to substitute Sourabh Jindal LLP as a Defendant in the said suit as per law.
(iii) Defendant No 1 has also executed an assignment deed (of trademark Sourabh Jindal with logo)in favour of Sourabh Jindal LLP and filed an appropriate application TM-P before the concerned authority in this regard.
3. At the hearing, learned counsel for applicant/defendant No.1 submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record are in public domain and are necessary for just determination of the case.
4. On the other hand, the present application was vehemently opposed by learned counsel for plaintiff who submitted that the plea of defendant No.1 that the additional documents sought to be placed on record were in possession of defendant No.1 cannot be accepted, as defendants might have initiated the process for registration of the trademark much before filing of the written statement, however, did not disclose this fact in the written statement so filed. Learned counsel further submitted that the said defendant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for nondisclosure of the documents which are sought to be placed on record.
5. With regard to bringing on record partnership agreement dated 14.08.2020, deed of assignment, demand draft of Rs. 10,000 etc., learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that these are not relevant for the purposes of adjudication of the present disputes.
6. To submit that before leave of the court is granted for taking on record some documents at a belated stage, the party seeking to produce the documents must satisfy the court that the said documents were not within their knowledge, learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon a decision of this Court in Polyflor Limited Vs. Sh. A.N. Goenka & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2333. Reliance was also placed upon a decision of Patna High Court in Dewanti Devi and Others Vs. Radheshyam Tiwary and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 28 to submit that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) prove that the documents which have not been produced along with the written statement, cannot be produced to the Court later on without leave of the Court. Further, in support of his submission that a document filed beyond the stage prescribed for filing thereof, runs contrary to the case pleaded, learned counsel for plaintiff relief upon a decision of this Court in Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco Infrastru
