Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
H.S. Sahni - Appellant
Versus
Mukul Singhal - Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 70 of 2022 and CM Nos. 14345 of 2022, 14347 of 2022 & 14348 of 2022
Decided On : 11-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against a stay order. (Para 1) |
| 2. multiplicity of litigation concerns. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. interim relief covered by previous orders. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 4 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 17.01.2022 (hereafter `the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S. (COMM) no. 31/2021. In terms of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge stayed the suit preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in terms of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter `the CPC').
2. The learned Single Judge found that the subject matter of both the suits, that is, CS (COMM) 146/2019 and CS (COMM) 31/2021, "is exactly the same". The learned Single Judge observed that "The concurrent trials will lead not only to the multiplicity of litigation but also to the possibility of contrary decisions where in one suit, one party is allowed to use its trademarks and in the second suit, the same party is injuncted from using the same." and, accordingly, stayed the suit filed before the learned Single Judge.
3. The learned Single Judge further declined to pass any injunction against the respondent/defendant, as the learned Commercial Court in CS (COMM) 146/2019 had already granted interim orders against which both the parties had filed their respective appeals [being FAO (COMM) 88/2021 and FAO (COMM) 89/2021].
4. By a common order dated 10.11.2022, the appeal filed by H.S. Sahni, FAO (COMM) 88/2021, was rejected and the appeal filed by Mukul Singhal and M/s M.G. Cables (India) [FAO (COMM) 89-2021] was allowed by this Court.
5. Indisputably, the subject controversy involved in the commercial suits filed by the contesting parties [CS (COMM) 146/2019] is similar to the subject disputes involved in the suit preferred by the appellant [CS (COMM) 31/2021].
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge, staying further proceedings in relation to the suit instituted by the appellant [CS (COMM) 31/2021] pending the decision in CS (COMM) 146/2019, which in turn is required to be stayed considering that the parties have filed applications for rectification of the registered marks.
7. The question whether the appellant is entitled to any interim relief is also squarely covered by the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by this Court in FAO (COMM) 88/2021 and FAO (COMM) 89/2021.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.
Stay of proceedings is justified to prevent multiplicity of litigation and contradictory judgments when dealing with overlapping subject matters.
Point of law: If matter in later suit is found to be “directly and substantially in issue” in previously instituted suit, later suit is liable to be stayed under Section - 10 of C.P.C.
A stay of trademark infringement proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act does not prohibit the court from adjudicating and passing orders on pending interlocutory applications, including....
The court emphasized that applications for injunctive relief must be decided together, as one affects the other, ensuring a fair judicial process.
Stay of suit – Same issue raised before Trial Court and High Court – Subsequently instituted suit liable to be stayed and since the instant suit filed prior to the suit pending before the High Court,....
Under Section 10 of CPC, a previously instituted suit cannot be stayed if a subsequent suit filed between the same parties, in respect of the same subject matter, is pending before the same court.
Section 10 of the CPC is mandatory to prevent contradictory verdicts by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
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
