Court established intentional perjury by Respondent through false statements regarding family business, permitting inquiry and ruling on justified delay in filing Written Statement due to health issues of the Applicant.

ORDER :

N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Application No.4722 of 2025 has been filed to record a finding and make a complaint under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 r/w. Sections 236, 237 & 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and to order an inquiry into the perjury committed by the Respondent/Defendant to be conducted by the Court of Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction and to take appropriate actions in accordance with the laws.

2.Application No.5024 of 2025 has been filed under Order XIV and Rule 8 of Original Side r/w. Order VIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , to condone the delay of 71 days in filing Written Statement by the Applicant/Defendant in C.S.No.122 of 2025.

Application No.4722 of 2025

3.The case of the Applicant is as follows:

3.1.The Applicant, who is the Plaintiff is a registered proprietor of Joonus Sait & Sons. He has filed this application seeking initiation of proceedings against the Respondent/Defendant for committing perjury under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , read with Sections 236, 237 and 246 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is the case of the Applicant that the Respondent has made false statements on oath in the Common Counter Affidavit filed on 25.06.2025 in O.A.Nos.481 & 482 of 2025. The Applicant filed Commercial Suit CS (Comm. Div.) No.122 of 2025 for trademark infringement, passing off and other issues.

3.2.According to the Applicant, the Respondent/Defendant’s has made some false averments in para 2(k) and clause 2(l) of the common counter which are extracted hereunder:

“2(k).It is further submitted that, in view of internal disturbances caused at the behest of the Applicant/Plaintiff and his family members, the Respondent/Defendant herein decided to part ways and bifurcate their businesses in the year 2000 and the same was followed by the younger most brother, Irfan Sait, in the year 2001. It is submitted that, vide a family settlement being M.O.U dated 01.04.2000, Late Ebrahim Sait, the father of the Applicant/Plaintiff and Respondent/Defendant, gave the Respondent/Defendant the unequivocal right to use the mark Joonus Sait, which even otherwise he is entitled to by virtue of his inheritance as the said mark being the mark of his forefather and him being a prominent member in the family. Even though, the late Ebrahim Sait was not happy with Respondent/Defendant’s decision to move the away from the family business, in order to buy peace of mind in the family, did not want the Respondent/Defendant to go bare-handed and made a family arrangement whereby the Respondent/Defendant was given the right to carry on business under the name Joonus Sait.

2(l).Such arrangement was further carried out later when the third brother, i.e., Irfan Sait also moved out of the family business because of the misdoings and misdeeds of the Applicant/Plaintiff the late Ebrahim Sait, being a very caring father, gave one set of family run business namely J,S & S Enterprises to Irfan Sait, thus it was the intention of Ebrahim Sait to give all his three sons equal opportunity in business and to use the family mark Joonus Sait, Joonus Sait & Sons and J.S & S Enterprises in all its possible permutations and combinations”.

3.3.The learned counsel for the Applicant contended that the documentary evidence clarifies the following aspects:

(a) The Respondent/Defendant’s retirement and settlement extinguished his claims in both M/s Joonus Sait & Sons and M/s J.S. & S. Enterprises;

(b) As part of the said settlement, the property at No. 23, Old No. W-16, North Main Road, Anna Nag