SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SANJIB BANERJEE, CJ, P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J
Hindustan Unilever Limited – Appellant
Versus
S.Shanthi Proprietrix: Lakshmi Soaps through her power holder D.Suyaraj – Respondent
OSA.Nos.230 of 2019 | OSA No.208 of 2021 | OSA (CAD) Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30 of 2021 | CMP Nos.9290, 10325, 10326, 10339, 10327, 10340, 10333, 10334, 10330, 10331, 10332, 10336 and 10337, 10444 and 8495 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Madhan Babu
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Mr.Parthasarathy
Mr.Arun C.Mohan
Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran
Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj
Mr.Vijay Narayan
Mr.P.Giridharan
Mr.N.L.Rajah
For the Respondents: Mr.Lakshmi Kumaran
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Mr.A.Abdul Hameed
Mr.Rohan K.George
Mr.Akhil Bhansali
Mr.K.Jagannathan
Mr.Rahul Balaji
Mr.Ravindhran
Mr.R.Parthasarathy
Mr.Anirudh Krishnan
Mr.Harshavardhan Ganesan

The Commercial Courts Act governs the scope of appeals regarding commercial disputes, allowing appeals against orders as enumerated while clarifying that appeals from decrees are maintainable despite ambiguities in statutory language.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Appeals involving various orders against injunction, plaint rejection, and plaint return in trademark infringement and tort - Court analyzed restrictions on appeals under the Act and affirmed that appeals from decrees remain maintainable despite ambiguity in earlier clauses - Court confirmed that an appeal lies against defined orders in the Act, emphasizing judicial clarity. (Paras 3, 104, 176)

(B) Jurisdiction - Concept of forum conveniens discussed - Plaintiffs' jurisdictional claim challenged; substantial connection to the jurisdiction is necessary - The trial court was held not to have properly adjudicated upon jurisdictional issues, leading to an incorrect dismissal of appeals. (Paras 111, 172)

(C) Statutory torts - Misleading statements in prospectus under Companies Act, 2013 acknowledged as grounds for civil liability - Joint and several liability of defendants highlighted in context of statutory provisions and misrepresentation claims. (Paras 124, 130)

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeals and their context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 15)
2. provisions of the commercial courts act under scrutiny. (Para 7 , 19 , 25 , 39 , 40 , 102)
3. judicial interpretation of statutory wording. (Para 14 , 51 , 52 , 65 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90)
4. discussion on definitions and implications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. determination of maintainability of appeals. (Para 57 , 61)
6. final observations on the court's authority and decisions. (Para 59 , 97)

COMMON JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE

The extent to which appeals are permitted in respect of matters covered by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) falls for a comprehensive consideration.

2. There are, in all, 13 appeals which are taken up together since the issue of appellability is involved in all or most of them. At the outset, it is necessary that the nature of the orders be seen so that it may be assessed whether an intra-court appeal lies therefrom under Section 13(1A) of the said Act.

3. OSA No.230 of 2019 is a proposed appeal against the dismissal of an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). It is submitted by the appellant that the relevant suit was filed before the Commercial Division in this High Court came to be established and, upon the Commercial Division being established, the suit was transferred from the ordinary Original Side to the Commercial Division in accordance with the said Act.

4. OSA (CAD) Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 19 of 2021 arise out of the same suit which may loosely be seen as a trademark infringement and passing-off action. Two of the appeals are by the plaintiffs and the three others by two of the defendants, one of the defendants having filed two appeals. OSA (CAD) No.1 of 2021 is a proposed appeal against an order dated April 27, 2021 returning the plaint for it to be filed elsewhere. OSA (CAD) No.2 of 2021 is an appeal against an order dated March 29, 2021 by which the injunction initially granted in the suit was modified. OSA (CAD) No. 3 of 2021 is proposed against an order dated April 27, 2021 refusing to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. OSA (CAD) No.4 of 2021 is a proposed appeal against that part of the order dated April 27, 2021 which refused to strike off the relevant defendant from the array of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. OSA (CAD) No.19 of 2021 is against the order dated March 29, 2021 by which the application filed by the appellant for vacating the interim injunction was only dismissed.

5. OSA (CAD) Nos.24, 25, 26 and 27 of 2021 all arise out of a suit for damages upon the plaintiff's substantial investment in the debentures issued in a limited liability company being completely lost. The suit is said to be founded on the statutory tort recognised in Section 35 of the Companies Act, 2013. All the appeals are by the plaintiff. OSA (CAD) Nos.24, 25, 26 and 27 of 2021 are appeals against the same order dated April 29, 2021 revoking leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent on applications filed by different sets of defendants. By such order, the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff for it to be carried to be filed in the Bombay High Court.

6. OSA (CAD) Nos.29 and 30 of 2021 arise out of a common order in another suit. The two appeals are directed against the same order dated April 19, 2021 by which the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was declined to be revoked and an application for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was dismissed.

7. Finally, OSA No.208 of 2021 is proposed against an order dated September 23, 2020 dismissing the defendant-appellant's application for condoning the delay in filing the written statement. Again, it is the appellant's contention that the relevant suit in this case was filed on th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top