The court determined that claims of perjury must be substantiated by deliberate and conscious statements, and trademark ownership disputes should be resolved by the Arbitral Tribunal.

ORDER

This is an application taken out under Sections 227 & 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for initiating action and to punish the respondent for giving false statements on oath in the affidavit dated

26.07.2024 filed in A.No.3986 of 2024 before this Court.

2. I have heard Mr.B.Madhan Babu, learned counsel for the Applicants and Mr.S.N.Subramani, learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the records.

3. The primordial contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that, though the Trademark Application in TM.No.595393 dated 23.04.1993 was in the name of the Partners of the Firm Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods and that the respondent has willfully made false and repeated allegations, not only before the Arbitral Tribunal, but also before this Court, as if the respondent is the sole and absolute owner of the mark, which amounts to perjury. The learned counsel for the applicants would take me through the false statements, which according to the applicants would entitle this Court to pull up the respondent for perjury. In this regard, he would take me through the nine instances that have been set out by way of a tabulation in the affidavit in support of the Application. Based on the same, the learned counsel for the applicants would contend that the false claim of ownership of the trademark was intentional and contrary to documents, mainly the statutory journal publication. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the prayer as sought for.

4. Per contra, Mr.S.N.Subramani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would deny all the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the Application. He would further contend that, all along, the respondent has claimed ownership over the registration “Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods” and that first and second Applicants are only his younger brothers. He would also invite my attention to several litigations between the parties. He would also contend that, though the applicants possess all relevant records of the registered trademark “UDHAIYAM”, which are only in the name of the respondent, they have falsely stated before the Arbitral Tribunal that the license No.595393- B is in the name of the Firm. He would also invite my attention to the order passed in A. No.3986 of 2024 regarding documents to be produced from various authorities.

5. He would also state that the Applicants have moved a writ petition for rectification of an alleged error in the Trademark No.595393, suppressing the A. No.3986 of 2024, as well as the Application dated 20.07.2021 before the Trademark Registry. He would further state that the Applicants 1 and 2 were not partners of Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods during 23.04.2018 to 08.12.2023 and it is only the Applicants who have filed a false affidavit and also complaint against the respondent.

6. It is the further case of the respondent that right from the beginning, the respondent has been objecting to the Firm's Application annexure containing the names of four partners, which are written in hand and there is already cross examination on this aspect before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is also the case of the respondent that he has not signed any Reconstitution Deed dated 04.06.2001 and according to the respondent, the respondent is the sole proprietor of the registered mark. The learned Counsel would also take me through the issues framed for consideration before the Arbitral Tribunal and contend that in the light of the issues framed by the Tribunal, the questio