MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (INDORE BENCH)
Vivek Rusia, J.
M/s. Mold-tek Packaging Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
S.D. Containers, Indore - Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 2156 of 2020
Decided On : 01-09-2020
Design Act - Transfer of Civil Suit - Section 22(4)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a public limited company, filed a civil suit against the defendant for manufacturing containers similar to those designed by the plaintiff. The defendant challenged the registration of the plaintiff's designs under Section 19(1) of the Design Act, 2000, and sought transfer of the suit to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commercial Court at Indore was competent to decide the suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and erred in transferring the case to the Calcutta High Court. The court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.
Issues: (1) Whether the transfer of the civil suit to the High Court under Section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000 was justified? (2) Whether the Commercial Court at Indore was competent to decide the civil suit?
Ratio Decidendi: The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for the establishment of Commercial Courts at the district level, and all suits and applications relating to commercial disputes are liable to be transferred to the Commercial Courts as per the territorial jurisdiction. The court held that the Commercial Court at Indore was competent to decide the suit.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order transferring the civil suit to the Calcutta High Court was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Rusia, J. - Being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2020 passed by the Commercial Court (District Court, Indore) whereby the civil suit has been transferred to Calcutta High Court under section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000, the applicant/plaintiff has filed the present writ petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.
Facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under:-
1. The applicant being a public limited company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 has filed the civil suit through its Managing Director (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff''). The Plaintiff Company was established in the year 1985, and has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling rigid plastic packaging material including manufacturing of injection molded containers for lubes, paints food, etc.. The Plaintiff company also manufactures containers made out of rigid plastic of various sizes and shapes the paint industry, food industry, dairy industry, and lubricant industry. The Plaintiff is claiming the status of pioneers by way of their in house research and developmental activities in the area of their inventive and creative efforts for developing the variety of tamper-proof lids of Pails/Container. The plaintiff submitted applications in the year 2015 and 2017 for registration of design of the lids of the containers, containers, lids with the spout, jar or container with the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Kolkatta
2. According to the plaintiff, in September- November 2019 it came to their knowledge that non-applicant (hereinafter referred as "Defendant") is producing lid and container of exactly similar design as that of the Plaintiff and supplying them to edible oil Manufactures and some of them are even existing customers of the plaintiff viz M/s Mahendra Brothers.
3. Based on the cause of action arose on 10/1/2020 and above mentioned facts the plaintiff has filed the suit before the Commercial Court ( District Court at Indore) seeking a decree of declaration that defendant has no right to manufacture containers that are similar to those manufactured by the plaintiff company, decree of permanent injection restraining the Defendant not to copy, use or enable others to use this plaintiff's Design of the Container under Design Application No: 299039 and Lid under Design Application No . 299041 SO and compensation of sum of Rs.5 crores towards notional Damages against. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has also filed an application of temporary injunction under O.39-R.1&2 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
4. That the defendant after appearance filed a written statement cum counter claim and reply to the application for a temporary injunction. Thereafter, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 seeking rejection of counter claim. The Respondent/ Defendant filed an Application under Section 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000 seeking for transfer of the suit to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench.
5. That the defendant by way of the written statement has specifically challenged the registration of the plaintiffs' designs on the grounds provided under Section 19(1) of the Design Act, 2000 and have averred that the salient features in the Plaintiffs Designs lack novelty and originality and that designs with similar features have been published in India or any other country before the date of registration, and hence both the Designs are liable for cancellation under Section 19(1) of the Act. The Defendant has further pleaded that having availed the grounds under Section 19 of the Act as the ground of defence, Section 22(4) of Act comes into force and the trial court must transfer the suit to the High Court for its decision.
6. That vide impugned order dated 23.03.2020 the learned Comercial Court at Indore has allowed the application filed under section 22(4) of the Design Act,2000, and transferred the suit with a
Bharat Glass Tube Ltd. vs. Gopal Glass Works Ltd
Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Reckit Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. & another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.