Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 16578
CS(COMM) 538/2018
Page 1 of 6
$~14
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28th November, 2023.
+
CS(COMM) 538/2018
TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN PVT.
LTD.
..... Plaintiff
Through:
None.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE &
INDUSTRY
.....
Defendant
Through:
Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Mr. Rajendra
Kumar, Mr. Jitin Geoarge & Mr.
Ashutosh Jain, Ms. Anjali Kumari
Advs. (M: 9931282222) with Mr.
Sandeep Verma, Under Secretary,
Department of Commerce and Mr.
Tarun Bajaj, Director, APEDA.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2.
The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff No. 1-Trading
Corporation of Pakistan Pvt. Ltd., Plaintiff No. 2-Rice Exporters Association
of Pakistan and Plaintiff No. 3- Basmati Growers Association (hereinafter,
‘the Plaintiffs’) seeking an injunction against the Defendant-Government of
India from inter alia approving Super Basmati as approved evolved Basmati
for the purposes of export.
3.
The Plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking the following reliefs:
“i.
An order of permanent injunction directing
the Defendant not to give effect to the impugned
Digitally Signed
By:DHIRENDER KUMAR
Signing Date:30.11.2023
15:39:36
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 538/2018
Page 2 of 6
Gazette Notification dated 24th May 2006
permitting exports of evolved Basmati rice or any
rice
from
India
under
the
name/variety/classification/trade name of ‘SUPER
BASMATI’;
ii.
An
of
permanent
injunction
restraining the Defendant, their partners, servants,
agents, representatives, exporters from India and
all those acting in concert with them or claiming
under or through them or otherwise and from
taking any further legislative, regulatory or
administrative action in furtherance of the
impugned Notification and from using the name
‘SUPER BASMATI’ in relation to export of rice
from India;
iii.
order
of
permanent
injunction
restraining the Defendant from permitting exports
of rice under the name ‘SUPER BASMATI’
constituting passing off of the Plaintiffs’ trans-
border reputation of the ‘SUPER BASMATI’ name,
label, quality, variety and classification of evolved
Basmati rice;
iv.
order
of
permanent
injunction
restraining the Defendant and those acting in
consort with the Defendant or under the impugned
notification, from indulging in any activity which
dilutes the distinctive character of the Plaintiffs’
Super Basmati rice brand, label, classification or
variety;
v.
order
of
permanent
injunction
restraining
Defendant,
their
agents,
representatives and all those acting in concert with
them or claiming under or through them or
otherwise, from infringing the Plaintiffs trade
name, label, classification, brand or variety of
‘SUPER BASMATI’ in their packaging, layout,
representation or trade reference to basmati rice
exported from India or grown in India;
Page 3 of 6
[…]”
4.
In the present suit, which was filed in 2008, the Plaintiff also challenged
the Notification dated 24th May, 2006 issued by the Defendant-Department
of Commerce, Government of India. Vide order 16th April, 2014, this Court
framed issues in the suit.
5.
Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff was concluded. On
behalf of the Defendant, Mr. N. Ramesh, Director, Ministry of Commerce
appeared as DW-1 and was cross-examined on 11th April, 2019. The cross
examination was not yet concluded.
6.
With effect from 3rd September, 2020, there is no appearance on behalf
of the Plaintiff. Discharge was also sought on 24th November, 2022 by ld.
Counsel for the Plaintiff. However, no application has been moved seeking
discharge till date.
7.
Vide order dated 2nd November, 2023, this Court directed as follows:
“4. The Plaintiffs stopped appearing in the present
suit effectively from 3rd September, 2020. Due to
the inability of the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff to
receive instructions from the Plaintiffs, discharge
from the present suit on 24th November, 2022.
Thereafter, there is no appearance for the
Plaintiffs. Further, the Id. Joint Registrar has also
observed, vide order dated 9th October 2023, that
until now the application for discharge has not
been moved in the suit.
5. Considering the nature of this matter, it is
directed that the Defendant shall produce all the
documents referred to in the evidence by way of
affidavit filed on behalf of DW1-Mr. N. Ramesh.
Further, a competent official from the Ministry of
Commerce, Government of India shall remain
present in Court on the next date of hearing.”
Page 4 of 6
8.
Thus, the Court had, on 2nd November, 2023, directed the Defendant to
produce the Notification dated 24th May, 2006 which was referred to in the
evidence of DW-1.
9.
Today, Mr. Sandeep Verma, Under Secretary, Department of
Commerce and Mr. Tarun Bajaj, Director, Agricultural and Processed Food
Products Export Development Authority (‘APEDA’) are present before the
Court. It is submitted that in terms of Section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966, the
Government under the aegis of the Central Seed Committee approves Basmati
varieties from time to time for the purposes of the Seeds Act, 1966. Ld.
Counsels for the Defendant refer to the Notification bearing No. 2687 dated
18th September 2017, reproduced as follows:
“S.O.
3067(E).
Whereas,
vide
its
Office
Memorandum No.17-12/2007-SD-IV, dated 29th
May, 2008, the Central Government described the
primary quality characteristics as well as the other
ancillary characteristics as required to qualif
