HC reiterates Procedural and Technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing Substantial Justice [Read Judgment]

07 Jan 2022

By : Mehak Dhiman

High Court of Delhi was dealing with petition filed for seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark "JINDAL". The present application has been preferred by applicant Sourabh Jindal to bring on record certain additional documents.

Brief Facts:

Defendant has got registration of the trademark “Sourabh Jindal” with logo in class 16 and 35. Mr. Dheeraj Aggarwal and Mr. Praful B. Bhatt joined the business with defendant and have created a Limited Liability Partnership company in the name of Sourabh Jindal LLP. Now the business of Defendant is being run by three of the Partners in the name of limited liability Partnership company called SOURABH JINDAL LLP with all its assets and liabilities. The plaintiff is free to take appropriate steps to substitute Sourabh Jindal LLP as a Defendant in the said suit as per law. Defendant has also executed an assignment deed in favour of Sourabh Jindal LLP and filed an appropriate application before the concerned authority in this regard.

Defendant’s Contention:

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record are in public domain and are necessary for just determination of the case.

Plaintiff’s Contention:

Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the plea of defendant that the additional documents sought to be placed on record were in possession of defendant cannot be accepted, as defendants might have initiated the process for registration of the trademark much before filing of the written statement, however, did not disclose this fact in the written statement so filed. It was submitted that the said defendant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for nondisclosure of the documents which are sought to be placed on record.

It was submitted that provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A (3) prove that the documents which have not been produced along with the written statement, cannot be produced to the Court later on without leave of the Court. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the purport of Commercial Courts Act is to expedite the disposal of such suits and by filing such application, the defendant is trying to delay the proceedings.

HC’s Observations and Held:

After hearing both the sides Court stated that pertinently, vide order dated 15.05.2019, the Court directed the defendants to stop using the mark ‘JINDAL’ in their trading name as well as trade mark and directed to use ‘SOURABH JINDAL’ as their trade name and trade mark.”

HC observed that the documents sought to be placed on record clearly show that applications for registration of trademarks under Class 35 and 16 respectively were made on 07.06.2019, whereas written statement was filed thereafter on 25.06.2019.

HC stated that though for the reasons best known to defendant, the fact of having applied for registration of word mark “Sourabh Jindal” during pendency of this suit, was not mentioned in the written statement. However, it cannot be lost sight of that by virtue of interim order, this Court had permitted the defendants to use the said trade/word mark and no restraint order in respect thereof was passed and after receipt of traded mark registration certificate, defendant has approached this Court to place the same on record.

HC relied upon the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another Vs. P. Rajkumar, where SC held that Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).