Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Indian Penal Code
Article 227 in The Constitution Of India 1949

User Queries
Gujarat High Court
Shree Maruti Courier Services Pvt ... vs Maruti Nandan Couriers Pvt on 3 October, 2013

SHREE MARUTI COURIER SERVICES PVT LTD....Petitioner(s)V/SMARUTI NANDAN COURIERS PVT LTD

C/SCA/14883/2013

ORDER

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL

APPLICATION NO. 14883 of 2013

================================================================

SHREE MARUTI COURIER

SERVICES PVT LTD....Petitioner(s)

Versus

MARUTI NANDAN COURIERS PVT LTD & 3....Respondent(s)

================================================================

Appearance:

MR SN

SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR YJ TRIVEDI & MR HS TOLIA, ADVOCATES for the Petitioner MR NAVEEN PAHWA FOR MR ZAHID SHAIKH, MS RUSHVI SHAH, MR KAMAL UPADHYAYA FOR M/S.HK ACHARYA & COMPANY, ADVOCATES for the Respondents

================================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE SMT.

JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI

Date : 03/10/2013

ORAL ORDER

This petition, under

Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:

(A) Your Lordships be

pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16.8.2013 passed below Exh.7 by Ld. Chamber Judge, Court No.10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Misc. Civil Application No.102 of 2012 and further be pleased to grant the injunction application Ex.27, in the interest of justice;

(B) Your Lordships be

pleased to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants, etc. from using the name Maruti Nandan Couriers Pvt. Ltd. and/or any name containing or considering word Maruti and/or any mark or name or logo which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the petitioner company in the courier business and thereby restrain them from committing infringement of petitioner company s trademark Maruti as well as committing an act of passing off and providing their business and services as of business and services of petitioner company, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(D) Your Lordships be

pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.9.2013 passed by Ld. Chamber Judge, Court No.10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on application below Exh.47 and further be pleased to grant the application Exh.47, as prayed for, in the interest of justice;

(E) Your Lordships be

pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of order dated 20.9.2013 passed by Ld. Chamber Judge, Court No.10, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad on application below Exh.47, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition;

(F) Your Lordships be

pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer (B) and (D) above, in the interest of justice;

(G) Your Lordships be

pleased to grant such other and further reliefs, as may be deemed fit by this Hon ble Court, in the interest of justice;

The petitioner has filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.2079 of 2013, before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on 05.08.2013, for infringement of its trademark. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Notice of Motion filed by it on 05.08.2013, has still not been heard. The petitioner was constrained to file an application at Ex.27, praying for the relief sought by it in the Notice of Motion. The said application has been rejected by the order dated 16.08.2013, impugned in the present petition.

On the other hand,

respondents Nos.1 and 3 herein (original defendants Nos.1 and 3) have filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( the Code for short), for rejection of the Plaint. The said application is in the process of being heard.

This Court has heard

Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Y.J.Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Naveen Pahwa, learned advocate for M/s.H.K.Acharya and Company, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents (Caveators), at length, and perused the material on record.

There is a consensus

between the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondents that the learned Judge, who is in the process of hearing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, filed by respondents Nos.1 and 3 (original defendants Nos.1 and 3), should be directed to complete the hearing thereof on, or before, 04.10.2013. Thereafter, an order, in accordance with law, may be passed on, or before, 09.10.2013. If the order below the application for rejection of the Plaint is passed in favour of the respondents, the petitioner can take appropriate legal recourse. However, if the order below the said application is against the respondents (original defendants), in that case, the learned Judge, to whom the matter has been assigned by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, vide common order dated 27.08.2013, passed below Exhibits 29, 32 and 33, shall hear the Notice of Motion filed by the petitioner (original plaintiff) and, after hearing the parties, shall pass an order, in accordance with law, on, or before, 18.10.2013.

Having heard learned

counsel for the respective parties and in view of the consensus between the parties, as recorded hereinabove, the following order is passed:

(a) The learned Judge,

who is, at present, hearing the application filed by respondents Nos.1 and 3 (original defendants Nos.1 and 3), under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, for rejection of the Plaint, shall complete the hearing thereof by 04.10.2013. The order on the said application shall be passed on, or before, 09.10.2013.

(b) If the application

under Order 7, Rule 11, is decided in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 3 (original defendants Nos.1 and 3), the petitioner (original plaintiff) shall be at liberty to take appropriate legal action. In the event that the application is decided in favour of the petitioner (original plaintiff) and against respondents Nos.1 and 3, the learned Judge to whom the matter has been assigned vide common order dated 27.08.2013, passed below applications Ex.29, 32 and 33, by the learned Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, shall hear and decide the Notice of Motion preferred by the petitioner after hearing the parties and in accordance with law on, or before, 18.10.2013.

(c) The parties shall

not take adjournments and the hearing and decision of the application(s), as above, shall not be delayed in any circumstances. The time schedule given above shall not be varied or extended.

At this stage,

Mr.S.N.Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate states, upon instructions, that in view of the above directions, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition, without prejudice to the rights and contentions available to the petitioner.

Permission to withdraw

the petition is granted. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn, keeping the rights and contentions available to the parties open.

It is made clear that

this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. The Notice of Motion shall be decided without being influenced by the order dated 16.08.2013, passed below Ex.27. The above order is passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Direct Service of this

order, today, is permitted.

(SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI,

J.)

sunil

Page

6

of 6