The court allowed amendments to clarify allegations of fiduciary breaches while rejecting proposed sales figures as mere clerical errors, emphasizing the need for clarity in legal pleadings.

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

INTRODUCTION :

1. The core controversy between the Parties in CS(COMM) 97/2020 (“Suit”) and CS(COMM) 761/2016 (“Connected Suit”) is about the proprietorship, adoption and use of the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in relation to Sabudana and allied edible products.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. The Suit earlier numbered as OS No. 148 of 2016 and filed before the District Court, Salem by Sabu Trade Private Limited against Mr. Rajkumar Sabu (“Rajkumar Sabu”) and AVMH Corporation i.e., Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, was transferred to this Court by the Supreme Court vide common order dated 18.07.2019 passed in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1676 of 2017, 1328 of 2018 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5644-5645 of 2019.

3. It is the case of Sabu Trade Private Limited that Kaushalya Devi Sabu and Gopal Sabu, the directors of Sabu Trade Private Limited, after having achieved success in the business by the name, M/s Sabu Traders (“ST”) i.e., the predecessor of Sabu Trade Private Limited, decided to incorporate a private limited company in the year 1993 and accordingly a company in the name of M/s Sabu Export Salem Pvt. Ltd. (“SESPL”) was incorporated on 05.05.1993 and the name of said company was changed to M/s Sabu Trade Private Limited (“STPL”) on 09.08.2006 with the following directors:

(i) Kaushalya Devi Sabu

(ii) Gopal Sabu

(iii) Shivnarayan Sabu

(iv) Rajkumar Sabu

4. It is the case of STPL that STPL is the true proprietor and prior user of the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ and that Rajkumar Sabu while being associated with STPL as a director and dealer / distributor, and dealing in goods bearing the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in that capacity allegedly surreptitiously obtained trade mark registrations for the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in his personal name. 5. The Connected Suit is filed by Rajkumar Sabu before this Court against the directors of STPL, i.e., Kaushalya Devi Sabu, Gopal Sabu arraigned as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respectively and STPL arraigned as Defendant No. 3 (“Defendants”) permanently restraining the Defendants from using the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’.

6. It is the case of Rajkumar Sabu that the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ is registered in favour of Rajkumar Sabu in Class 30 vide application No. 1169859 and that on the basis of an affidavit dated 08.06.2016 of Late Smt. Chandrakanta Sabu, the mother of Rajkumar Sabu and Gopal Sabu (“Affidavit”) the rights, title and interest in the Mark ‘SACHAMOTI’ stand assigned to Rajkumar Sabu, in 1997.

APPLICATIONS ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION:

7. In view of the overlapping factual matrix of the Suit and Connected Suit, the following Applications filed by the Parties in the Suit and Connected Suit are being decided by way of this common Judgment:

Applications relating to Amendment of Pleadings

8. I.A. No. 10994/2020 is filed by STPL for amendment of the Plaint in the Suit and I.A. No. 11028/2020 is filed by the Defendants for amendment of the Written Statement in the Connected Suit (“Amendment Applications”), under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”) seeking following amendments:

9. STPL seeks the following amendments to the Plaint in the Suit:

(i) amendment of Paragraph No. XV containing averments relating to sales figures and advertisement expenditure;

(ii) insertion of Paragraph Nos. XXXV (A) to XXXV (G) containing allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and fabrication of the Affidavit;

(iii) amendment of Paragraph No. XXXX and Paragraph No. XXXXI relating to valuation of the Suit and

(iv) amendment of the Prayer clause by introducing r