1991 Supreme(Sikk) 2

HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
R. DAYAL
ITC LTD. - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA MOKTAN - Respondents
Civil Revn 6 Of 1991
Decided On : October 5, 1991

Headnote:

The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by ITC Limited challenging the order of the District Judge rejecting the application filed by ITC under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejecting the plaint on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by law. The High Court held that the impugned judgment is vitiated by illegality for the following reasons: (i) The learned District Judge did not consider the relevant law and the arguments advanced by ITC; (ii) The impugned judgment does not show how the plaint discloses cause of action; though the Learned District Judge has stated that the plaintiffs have made allegations of serious nature, he has not spelled out how any allegation constitutes any cause of action; the judgment is based on no intelligible reasons; the so-called reasons being a mere pretence of reasons; (iii) The learned District Judge relied on material outside the plaint. He relied upon a xerox copy of a letter from M/s. Fox and Gibbons, solicitors, to a Malayasian oil company to come to the conclusion that the mark "w. C. and H. O. Wills" is still registered in the names of the two English companies, even when it was not referred to in the plaint and its genuineness was under challenge; (iv) The learned District Judge sought to create a wrong impression that the conclusion recorded by him was in accord with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition which had been filed by ITC against the ex parte order of injunction granted by him, even when it was not possible for anyone to get that impression, thus betraying a complete lack of judicial approach.

Fact of the Case:

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on 21-1-1991 filed a suit against the petitioner company (hereinafter referred as ITC) for reliefs of declaration and injunction restraining ITC from using the brand name and/or endorsement of "w. D. and H. O. Wills" and/or "wills" on the cigarettes packets and cartons manufactured sold and advertised by the Defendant No. 2 through Defendant No. 1 and/or their other Dealers, Agents etc. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants are not entitled to use the aforesaid Foreign Brand name and/or endorsement of "w. D. and H. O. Wills" and/or "wills" on the cigarettes packets and cartons manufactured sold and advertised by the Defendant No. 2 through Defendant No. 1 and/or their other Dealers, Agents etc. The plaintiffs alleged that the use of the aforesaid endorsement on the cigarette packets is suggestive of the fact that the cigarattes being sold in the packets carrying this endorsement are being manufactured or sold by the aforesaid foreign companies. The defendants are not in any way acting as an agent of the said foreign companies and the cigarettes sold by them have no foreign content and are being manufactured, sold and distributed entirely in India. This is clearly deceptive and misleading and is injurious to public interest, and the defendants are passing off their cigarettes as those manufactured in India by these British companies. Alternatively, the endorsement made on the Wills cigarette packings manufactured by ITC suggests and creates an impression upon the minds of the consumers that all the brands of Wills cigarettes manufactured and sold by it are products, being sold in collaboration or association with the aforesaid foreign companies. ITC moved an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging therein that the averments made in the body of the plaint and the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs do not disclose any cause of action and only an illusion of a cause of action has been created by making fake and untrue statements, and further that the suit is barred by law and is not maintainable. The learned Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11, giving rise to this Revision.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the impugned judgment is vitiated by illegality for the following reasons: (i) The learned District Judge did not consider the relevant law and the arguments advanced by ITC; (ii) The impugned judgment does not show how the plaint discloses cause of action; though the Learned District Judge has stated that the plaintiffs have made allegations of serious nature, he has not spelled out how any allegation constitutes any cause of action; the judgment is based on no intelligible reasons; the so-called reasons being a mere pretence of reasons; (iii) The learned District Judge relied on material outside the plaint. He relied upon a xerox copy of a letter from M/s. Fox and Gibbons, solicitors, to a Malayasian oil company to come to the conclusion that the mark "w. C. and H. O. Wills" is still registered in the names of the two English companies, even when it was not referred to in the plaint and its genuineness was under challenge; (iv) The learned District Judge sought to create a wrong impression that the conclusion recorded by him was in accord with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition which had been filed by ITC against the ex parte order of injunction granted by him, even when it was not possible for anyone to get that impression, thus betraying a complete lack of judicial approach. The High Court further held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and so is liable to be rejected.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action, if not, whether the same is liable to be rejected?2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the said suit as alleged by the defendant No. 2?

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the impugned judgment is vitiated by illegality for the following reasons: (i) The learned District Judge did not consider the relevant law and the arguments advanced by ITC; (ii) The impugned judgment does not show how the plaint discloses cause of action; though the Learned District Judge has stated that the plaintiffs have made allegations of serious nature, he has not spelled out how any allegation constitutes any cause of action; the judgment is based on no intelligible reasons; the so-called reasons being a mere pretence of reasons; (iii) The learned District Judge relied on material outside the plaint. He relied upon a xerox copy of a letter from M/s. Fox and Gibbons, solicitors, to a Malayasian oil company to come to the conclusion that the mark "w. C. and H. O. Wills" is still registered in the names of the two English companies, even when it was not referred to in the plaint and its genuineness was under challenge; (iv) The learned District Judge sought to create a wrong impression that the conclusion recorded by him was in accord with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition which had been filed by ITC against the ex parte order of injunction granted by him, even when it was not possible for anyone to get that impression, thus betraying a complete lack of judicial approach. The High Court further held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and so is liable to be rejected.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition filed by ITC Limited challenging the order of the District Judge rejecting the application filed by ITC under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejecting the plaint on the grounds that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and the suit is barred by law. The High Court held that the impugned judgment is vitiated by illegality for the following reasons: (i) The learned District Judge did not consider the relevant law and the arguments advanced by ITC; (ii) The impugned judgment does not show how the plaint discloses cause of action; though the Learned District Judge has stated that the plaintiffs have made allegations of serious nature, he has not spelled out how any allegation constitutes any cause of action; the judgment is based on no intelligible reasons; the so-called reasons being a mere pretence of reasons; (iii) The learned District Judge relied on material outside the plaint. He relied upon a xerox copy of a letter from M/s. Fox and Gibbons, solicitors, to a Malayasian oil company to come to the conclusion that the mark "w. C. and H. O. Wills" is still registered in the names of the two English companies, even when it was not referred to in the plaint and its genuineness was under challenge; (iv) The learned District Judge sought to create a wrong impression that the conclusion recorded by him was in accord with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition which had been filed by ITC against the ex parte order of injunction granted by him, even when it was not possible for anyone to get that impression, thus betraying a complete lack of judicial approach. The High Court further held that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, and so is liable to be rejected.