Back
2010 Supreme(UK) 3
2010 (1) UAD 553
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and
Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan
Civil Appeal No. 1360-1361 of 2005 With C.A. No. 1362 of 2005
SKYLINE EDUCATION INSTITUTE (PVT.) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
S.L. VASWANI & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 05.01.2010
For the Respondents:Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar, Mr. N. Kumar, Ms. Hetu Arora, Mr. Alex T., Advocates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 136 — Exercise of powers under — Scope and limitations of — Where 'trial court considers and decides the party's prayer for temporary injunction on the basis of undisputed facts and material placed before it — Unless the Apex Court comes to the conclusion that the discretion, exercised by the High Court in refusing to entertain the appellant's prayer for temporary injunction is vitiated by an error apparent — Or perversity and manifest injustice has been done to it, there will be no warrant for exercise of power u/Art 136. (Paras 13 & 16)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 39, Rules 1, 2 — Temporary injunction— Grant/refusal of — Appellate court's powers — Exercise and scope of — Once the court at first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction — And the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons — The appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity. (Para 16)
¼v½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 136 ds vUrxZr vf/kdkjksa dk iz;ksx] foLrkj vkSj lhek & ;fn dksbZ fopkj.k U;k;ky; fdlh i{kdkj dh vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh izkFkZuk ij vfookfnr rF; ds vk/kkj ij tks mlds lEeq[k izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS] fopkj djrh gS vkSj fu.kZ; nsrh gS & tc rd mPpre U;k;ky; bl fu.kZ; ij u igq¡p tk, fd mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Lo foosd ds vk/kkj ij vihydrkZ dh izkFkZuk dks vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk gsrq fdlh Li"V =qfV ds dkj.k vFkok fdlh fojks/kkHkkl ds dkj.k vkSj izdV vU;k; ds dkj.k vLohdkj dj fn;k gS rks vuqPNsn 136 ds vUrxZr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk,xhA ¼izLrj 13 vkSj 16½
¼c½ nhokuh izfd;k lafgrk] 1908] vkns'k 39] fu;e 1] 2 & vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk Lohdr fd;k tkuk vFkok vLohdr gksuk & bl lEcU/k esa vihyh; U;k;ky; dh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx vkSj foLrkj & ,d ckj tc U;k;ky; }kjk izFke n`"V;k vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dks Lohdr djus vFkok vLohdr djus ds vius foosd dk iz;ksx dj fy;k tkrk gS vkSj Lofoosd dk iz;ksx Bksl rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gks tks fd U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k j[kk x;k gks vkSj ftl dh iqf"V ds Bksl dkj.k miyC/k gksa rks vihyh; U;k;ky; bl esa gLr{ksi djus esa ?k`.k djsxh & lk/kkj.kr;k u;s fljs ls ekeys ij fopkj.k djus ls ;g laHko gS fd og foijhr jk;] izR;{k n`"V;k dsl] lqfo/kk larqyu] viw.khZ; {kfr vkSj lekurk ds vk/kkj ij izdV djsA ¼izLrj 16½
G.S. Singhvi, J. — These appeals are directed against order dated 6.10.2004 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court whereby it dismissed FAO (OS) No. 212 of 2003 preferred by Skyline Education Institute (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’) against the order of the learned Single Judge who refused to restrain Satilila Charitable Society and S.L. Vaswani (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondents’) from using the name ‘Skyline’ as a part of their trading name in relation to their activities in the field of education and/or as a trademark in relation to any printed matter, including the course material, literature, syllabus etc. and partly allowed FAO (OS) No. 213 of 2003 preferred by the respondents insofar as the learned Single Judge directed them not to start any new course similar to the course run by the appellant, namely, graduate and post-graduate courses in Management, Travel and Tourism and further directed them to insert a note in the advertisement etc. that their institute is in no way related to the appellant.
2. The appellant is incorporated under the Companies Act. Although the appellant’s main objects, as specified in para ‘A’ of the Memorandum of Association, are to impart and train in all areas, subjects, fields and disciplines of education, including hospitality, tourism and business management; to act as representative of various foreign educational institutions, universities, organizations, bodies or any other type of institutions for recruiting students and rendering other related services; to establish and run in any part of India, colleges or schools to impart education on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Company from time to time but a closer look at the incidental or ancillary objects enumerated in para ‘B’ and other objects enumerated in para ‘C’ of the Memorandum of Association shows that the appellant can engage itself in all types of possible business activities.
3. Respondent No. 1, Satilila Charitable Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is said to be part of Skyline group of companies/concerns, the details of which are given below :
(i) M/s. S.K. Contracts (P) Ltd. (a company started in 1986)
(ii) M/s. Skyline Construction Co. (a partnership firm started in 1990)
(iii) M/s. Skyline Constructions (a partnership firm started in 1993)
(iv) M/s. Skyline Construction Engineers & Builders Co. (a partnership firm started in 1999)
(v) M/s. Skyline Contractors (P) Ltd. (a company started in 1999)
(vi) M/s. Skyline Software (P) Ltd. (a company for imparting education in software started in 2001).
4. The main object of respondent No. 1 is to establish colleges for higher technical education for various sections of the community. In November, 2001, respondent No. 1 acquired 13 acres of land in the Institutional complex, Greater NOIDA, U.P. at a cost of Rs. 5.25 crores for establishing a multi disciplinary college. Thereafter, the respondents obtained permission from All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and established an institution with the name Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology. They also recruited teaching faculty, made admissions in 4 disciplines and started five-year engineering course with effect from 9.9.2002.
5. As soon as respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement for recruiting teachers, the appellant got served notice dated 31.1.2002 upon the respondents and called upon them to stop using the word ‘Skyline’ in the name of their institute by alleging that the same was affecting its goodwill. Some dialogue appears to have taken place between the functionaries of the appellant and respondent No. 1 but without any tangible result. Therefore, the appellant filed Suit No. 1553 of 2002 in Delhi High Court for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein, their officers, servants, agents, representatives, franchisees or any of them from using the name ‘Skyline’ as pa
