The main legal point established is the need for expeditious disposal of commercial disputes and the limitations on adjournments, emphasizing the court's commitment to efficient resolution of trademark infringement cases.

JUDGMENT :

The present C.M.P has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-I-cum-Presiding officer, Commercial Court, Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 07 of 2016 whereby the petition filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1872’) has been dismissed and the plaintiffs’ evidence has been closed. The petitioners have also prayed for directing the learned Court below to proceed further with the said suit in accordance with law.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the C.M.P, is that the petitioners are the business partners of a registered partnership firm, namely, “Chhaganlal Dayaljee” which is carrying on the business of buying, marketing, trading, retailing and selling of jewellery made of gold, silver, diamond, precious metals as well as crystal stones and other items. The said business was started by Late Chhaganlal Dayaljee in the year 1918 and the petitioners are the descendants of said Chhagalal Dayaljee. In order to protect their trademark, the petitioners have also obtained a registered trademark in the name and style of “Chhaganlal” or “Chhaganlal Dayaljee”. They have also developed a logo which is used in the bills, packaging materials and is prominently displayed on the display board. In February, 2015, the petitioners came to know that the defendant-respondent opened a shop in the name and style of “Chhaganlal Gopalji” and “Chhaganlal Madanlal & Sons” using the trademark of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners instituted a suit being Original Suit No. 07 of 2016 under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1999’) against the respondent seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, employees, servant and dealers from infringing the plaintiffs’ registered trademark by reproducing it or any substantial part thereof in any material from in any manner whatsoever;

(b) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, employees, servants and dealers from using the logo and/or from passing off his business and/or products as that of the plaintiffs;

(c) A decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, employees, servants and dealers from using the said logo thereby committing an act of infringement of copyright of the plaintiffs artistic work;

(d) Delivery up and destruction of all packets having the plaintiffs’ registered trademark including wrappers, letterhead and other materials bearing the mark “CHHAGANLAL” or “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” and/or any other trademark identical and/or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs;

(e) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants, distributors, retailers, dealers, assigns or any one of them claiming under or through it in any manner infringing the plaintiffs’ trademark “CHHAGANLAL” or “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” by use of identical/deceptively similar trademark or any identical or similar mark to the plaintiffs’ registered trademark;

(f) A decree of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents, servants or any one of them claiming under or through it in any manner from passing off his business as that of the plaintiffs by use of the mark “CHHAGANLAL” or “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” and/or any other mark deceptively and/or identically similar thereto;

(g) Enquiry into loss and damage and decree upon such sum as may be found due and payable;

(h) Receiver;

(i) Injunction;

(j) Costs;

(k) Further and/or relief.”

3. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners filed a petition dated 16.09.2016 under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 & 7 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent from infringing the petitioners’ registered trademark. However, the said petition was dismissed by the learned Presiding offic