Court underscores the necessity of recording clear reasons for granting ex parte injunctions without prior notice, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements under the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGEMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 192 of 2008 with CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6576 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus ALEMBIC LIMITED - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : Mr.Mihir Thakore with MR ANIP A GANDHI for Appellant(s) : 1, Mr. KS NANAVATI with Mr. K.K. Nanavati for NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Date : 13/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal from Order arises from an order dated 29.05.2008 passed below Ex. 5 in Civil Suit No. 18 of 2008 whereby the Additional District Judge, Vadodara has passed an ad-interim injunction against the present 2/27 JUDGMENT appellant in terms of paras 38[a] and 38[b]of the injunction application (Ex. 5). The said paragraphs 38[a] and 38[b] read thus:

“38. The plaintiff, therefore, prays that:-

[a] Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain by an order of injunction the Defendant by themselves, their servants, agents, chemists, distributors, retailers and anybody claiming through the Defendant are not entitled to use trade mark GEMIMAC or any mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's reputed trade mark GERIMAC as their trade mark in respect of manufacturing, selling, exporting or distributing their goods or in any manner advertising their goods so as to pass off the goods of the Defendant as and for the Plaintiff;

[b] Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain by an order of injunction the Defendant by themselves, their servants, agents, chemists, distributors, retailers and anybody claiming through the Defendant are not entitled to use trade mark GEMIMAC or any mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's reputed trade mark GERIMAC as their trade mark in respect of manufacturing, selling, exporting or distributing their goods or in any manner advertising their goods so as to cause confusion and/or deception;”

2. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court by the captioned appeal. The appellant has, essentially raised serious grievance against the impugned order on the ground that there was no basis or justification for the learned court to grant exparte injunction without issuing notice before granting the injunction, and that too without recording reasons as contemplated by and required by the provision of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 3/27 JUDGMENT 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). The appellant has prayed that the said order may be quashed and set aside.

3. The appellant has raised below mentioned question of la