Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2770
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, J.
Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Applicants
Versus
Puma Sports India (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Application Nos.5585 and 5586 of 2017 in C.S. No.215 of 2015
Decided On : 29-01-2019
For the Applicants : Mr. R. Parthasarathy for M/s. Rohan George.
For the Respondents: Mr. Chinmoy Pradip Sharma for Mr. A.R. Ramanathan.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XVI - Rule 1- Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 2(o) - Commercial Division shall deal with same before dealing with second scenario - Appointment as Commissioner plaintiffs and two defendants - Plaintiffs are applicants respectively in both these applications - Defendant are respondents respectively in both these applications - Plaintiff (Quintessential Designs India Pvt Ltd shall hereinafter be referred to as QDI plaintiff shall hereinafter be referred to as QDS first defendant Puma Sports India (Pvt.) Ltd shall hereinafter be referred to as Puma India and second defendant PUMA Germany shall hereinafter be referred to as Puma Germany for sake of brevity clarity and convenience - In this common order besides abbreviations mentioned herein parties in these two applications shall also be referred to by their respective ranks in main suit wherever it considered necessary - As mentioned supra plaintiffs have taken out these two applications –Held, Division Bench expressed its anguish about time lines not being adhered to and reiterating that main objective was to expedite trial are filing barrage of applications only with intention delaying and if possible derail trial - To buttress this emphatic submission it is strongly reiterated that plaintiffs are having interim orders that have been absolute interlocutory applications in their kitty and these applications are being pressed into service to extend benefit these orders longest possible period of time plaintiff or petitioner would make all efforts to ensure that injunction continues indefinitely other appropriate order can be limit life of ex parte injunction or stay order for a week or so because in such cases usual tendency of unnecessarily prolonging matters by plaintiffs or petitioners after obtaining ex parte injunction orders or stay orders may not find encouragement - careful analysis of dynamics and dimensions of these two applications reveal that no prejudice or hardship would be caused to plaintiffs as it is always open to them to canvass that adverse inference should be drawn if defendants withhold best evidence or if witness who ought to have been examined does not enter witness box - It is clear that this should have been thought while agreeing for time lines before Division Bench noted that defendants even stretched their arguments and went as far as saying that they would not have agreed for time lines if plaintiffs had made clear that such a course will be adopted in the suit - This Commercial Division is of considered view that it high time that time lines adumbrated in two orders of Honble Division Bench are adhered to in letter and spirit by concluding trial before Commissioner and having final arguments in main suit heard out before the learned Single Judge (this Commercial Division) without any further loss of time – Order accordingly
ORDER :
This is a common order which will govern both these applications.
2. In the main suit, i.e., C.S.No.215 of 2015, there are two plaintiffs and two defendants. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are applicants 1 and 2 respectively in both these applications. Defendants 1 and 2 are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in both these applications. Plaintiff No.1 (Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd.) shall hereinafter be referred to as 'QDI', plaintiff No.2 ('QD Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.') shall hereinafter be referred to as 'QDS', first defendant 'Puma Sports India (Pvt.) Ltd.' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Puma India' and second defendant 'PUMA SE, Germany' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'Puma Germany' for the sake of brevity, clarity and convenience. In this common order, besides the abbreviations mentioned herein, parties in these two applications shall also be referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit wherever it is considered necessary.
3. As mentioned supra, plaintiffs have taken out these two applications. One application, i.e., A.No.5585 of 2017 is with a prayer for delivery of 46 interrogatories and this application shall hereinafter be referred to as 'interrogatories application' and the other application, i.e., A.No.5586 of 2017 is one seeking issuance of subpoena to five persons and the said application shall hereinafter be referred to as 'subpoena application', for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
4. Interrogatories application has been taken out under Order XVI Rule 1 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for brevity), this is not a correct provision and there is a request in the hearing to treat this application to be one under Order XI Rule 2 CPC and it shall be so treated. To be noted, subpoena application is under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC.
5. Before this Commercial Division deals with these two applications, it may be necessary to notice some short facts and a brief trajectory qua the main suit.
6. Plaintiffs and defendants were companions in commerce (now estranged) and their relationship is traceable to January of 2013. To be precise, 09.01.2013 when representatives of first plaintiff (QDI) and Mr. Vibhu Gupta, representing Puma India (first defendant) met, followed by another business meeting on 25.01.2013. In a nutshell, the business was with regard to bottom wear apparels for Spring of 2014. On 13.02.2013, plaintiffs, i.e., QDI and QDS organised an exhibition of all their services, i.e., Full Services for defendants and in this exhibition of Full Services on 13.02.2013, Puma India (first defendant) was represented by one Mr. Atul Bajaj. Thereafter, 32 physical samples obviously all bottom wear apparels relatable to 25 designs were delivered by plaintiffs to defendants on 02.07.2013. According to plaintiffs, they came to know on 07.08.2013 that there were no takers in the exhibition / road show and they did not get any orders regarding the aforesaid 32 samples relatable to 25 designs, but about four months later, on 06.12.2013, they came to know that defendants are selling the aforesaid apparels using plaintiffs' designs and samples.
7. According to plaintiffs, this is a clear case of infringement of plaintiffs' copyright. It is plaintiffs' case that their business transaction with the defendants includes full services vendor arrangement as well as tech packs arrangement.
8. Seeking inter-alia injunctive reliefs qua alleged infringement of copyright, instant main suit was filed by plaintiffs on 13.3.2015. On 25.3.2015, an interim order restraining defendants qua infringement of copyright came to be passed. This was an ex parte interim order. Defendants entered appearance, filed vacate injunction application and the matter was contested. After full contest, injunction and vacate injunction applications came to be disposed of by a common order dated 23.06.2015, wherein and whereby products already launched and in circulation in the market were allowed to be exhausted and there was an in
