CM(M)-IPD 4/2022

Page 1 of 7

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of decision: 22^nd February, 2022.

+

CM(M)-IPD 4/2022 & CM APPL. 8379/2022 (for stay)

BLACK DIAMOND TRACKPARTS PRIVATE LIMITED

AND ORS

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, Adv.

Versus

BLACK DIAMOND MOTORS

PRIVATE LIMITED

…...Respondent

Through:

Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Nipun Katyal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

J U D G M E N T

1.

This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India by the petitioners/defendants against the order dated 10^th January,

2022 of the Commercial Court, South District, Saket, New Delhi.

2.

Mr.

Praveen

Chaturvedi,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners/defendants has submitted that the impugned order was liable to

be set aside as it contained directions contrary to “law of the land” and in

contravention of the judgment dated 28^th May, 2021 of this court in FAO

(COMM) 41/2021 titled Black Diamond Track Parts Private Limited and

Ors. Vs. Black Diamond Motors Private Limited. The learned counsel

submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the

First Appeal in question, has set aside interim injunction which had been

granted ex-parte to the respondent/plaintiff. Thus on the date when the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000687

CM(M)-IPD 4/2022

Page 2 of 7

impugned order was passed, there was no right left in the

respondent/plaintiff which required protection. Such an observation in the

impugned order was thus misplaced and against the orders of this court in

the First Appeal. It is further submitted that under Section 136 of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ in short), the court could not have

appointed a Court Commissioner beyond its jurisdictional limits. Thirdly,

Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 saved the vested rights of the

petitioners/defendants as it was the predecessor-in-interest of the parties

who had the Trademark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’ registered in their names.

The family members being engaged in a dispute, the petitioners/defendants

could not be prevented from using the trademark. It is also submitted that

the learned Court could not have further directed the petitioners/defendants

to deposit the sale proceeds in the court or furnish a bank guarantee, as

such orders were beyond the jurisdiction vested in a court. Thus, it was

prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

3.

Ms. Malvika Trivedi, learned senior counsel on behalf of the

respondent/plaintiff, appearing on advance notice, has submitted that the

petition itself was not maintainable. Reliance in this regard has been

placed on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in

CM(M) 132/2021 i.e.Black Diamond Trackparts Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.

Black Diamond Motors Pvt. Ltd. It is argued that the scope of exercise of

powers

under

Article

227 was

very

restricted

and

the

petitioners/defendants have failed to disclose any error in the impugned

orders. It is submitted that the suit was yet to be disposed of finally.

Further, though the interim injunction granted to the respondent/plaintiff

had been vacated by the Division Bench of this court, it had directed the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/000687

CM(M)-IPD 4/2022

Page 3 of 7

petitioners/defendants to remove the labels containing the trademark of the

respondent/plaintiff and change into two different labels namely

“Raminder Singh Bhatia Group” and "Parvinder Singh Bhatia Group"

about which there is not a whisper in the petition. It was further submitted

that since the suit was still pending, protection of the interests of the

respondent/plaintiff was but natural, since they were the registered

proprietors of the trade mark ‘BLACK DIAMOND’.

4.

Arguments heard and the record and cited judgments perused.

5.

Bef