Back
P. SOMARAJAN
G. M. Sheik, S/o Abdul Hosen – Appellant
Versus
Raja Biri Private Ltd. Represented by Managing Director Harekrishna Biswas, S/o Sadanatha Biswas – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This appeal came up for hearing today. Heard both sides. The dispute is pertaining to alleged infringement of trade mark and name of Raja Biri and Raja Bidi.
2. The preliminary objection raised that the appeal will not stand as there is no provision for it against an ex parte interim order cannot be sustained in view of the legal position settled by the Apex Court in A.Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.Challappan and Ors. (AIR 2000 SC 3032).
3. Before issuance of notice to the defendants/counter petitioners, an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from doing their business. The suit was filed on 31/05/2022. Interim ex parte injunction was granted on 01/06/2022 before issuing notice to the appellants/counter petitioners. The defendants/appellants entered appearance and filed their counter on 27/06/2022. But, the matter was not heard on merit within the time schedule of 30 days. It was adjourned to 02/7/2022 and then to 13/07/2022. The appellants/defendants hence filed an application for early hearing under Order XXXIX Rule 3 A C.P.C.. But in spite of the said application, the matter was not heard on merit. The trial court in the meanwhile appointed a
(1) An ad interim injunction shall not be granted in derogation of right of opposite party.(2) An order passed without issuing notice to opposite party cannot be brought under purview of Section 36 C....
“3A Where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which....
The duty of fair disclosure and the exceptional nature of without notice applications, emphasizing the importance of time-limited injunctions and the reserved liberty for the Defendants to apply for ....
The court must record reasons for granting ex-parte injunction without notice, making this requirement mandatory for valid exercise of jurisdiction.
An injunction obtained under misrepresentation cannot be vacated without proven suppression of material facts; established trademark rights remain effective despite prior lawsuits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of an exparte order of temporary injunction must comply with the Trinity Test as mandated by the Supreme Court, and the trial Court ....
The trial Court must provide reasoned orders when dealing with applications for temporary injunctions, particularly in urgent cases, and should not simply issue mechanical orders without assessment.
appellant has not filed any objection/application before the Trial Court under Rule 4 of Order 39 C.P.C. to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a final order....
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
