Calcutta High Court
Dabur India Limited vs Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan ... on 22 February, 2022
IA No. GA 1 of 2022
APOT No. 34 of 2022
with
CS No. 232 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
In appeal from its
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Dabur India Limited
Versus
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.
Before:
The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI
And
The Hon'ble Justice ANIRUDDHA ROY
Date: 22nd February 2022
Appearance:
Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Jawahar Lal, Advocate
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Advovcate
Mr. Anuj Garg, Advocate
Mr. Pradipto Bose, Advocate
for the appellant
Mr. Manish Biala, Advocate
Ms. Amrita Panja Mullick, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Devesh Ratam, Advocate
for the respondent
The Court: This appeal from a judgment and order dated 8th
February 2022 passed by a learned single judge modifying the order of
injunction passed on 25th November 2021 concerning advertisements of
the products of the respondent/defendant is formally admitted.
As aforesaid the order of injunction was made on 25th
November 2022. The respondent/defendant did not prefer any appeal
from that order. It is common ground that the said order of injunction
was obeyed by them whilst the interim application was made ready by
learned lawyers for hearing. It was heard on diverse dates and decided
on 8th February 2022 when the interim order was modified to the
following extent as mentioned in paragraph 26 of the impugned
judgment and order.
"26. Hence, based on the above discussion, to
summarize, I am passing the following orders on
the impugned advertisements in the following
manner:
a) Annexure "I" is permanently injuncted.
b) Annexure "J" is permanently injuncted in
the present form. However, this advertisement
can be printed after removal of the reference to
"42 ingredients".
c) Annexure "K" is permanently injuncted in
the present form. However, this advertisement
can be printed after removal of the reference to
"42 ingredients".
d) Annexure "L" is not injuncted.
e) Annexure "M" is permanently injuncted.
However if the changes suggested in paragraph
25 are made, the advertisement can be
permitted to be shown on television, social
media and other platforms."
The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by paragraphs (b) and (c)
relating to annexures 'J' and 'K' of the interim application. Hence this
appeal.
We are of the opinion that any interference with the impugned
judgement and order would amount to either virtually allowing the
appeal or dismissing it, at the admission stage.
A substantial case has been made out by the parties which has
to be heard out in the appeal. The balance of convenience as would
appear from the circumstances narrated above would be in favour of
maintaining the status quo regarding the advertisement being
annexures 'J' and 'K' to the interim application as of today for a period
of eight weeks from date or until further orders whichever is earlier to
enable this court to hear out the appeal.
We order accordingly.
Let the appeal be heard out dispensing with all formalities.
As the respondent is represented by learned counsel, issuance
and service of the notice of appeal are dispensed with. Learned
advocate-on-record is directed to file an informal paper book in this
court by 8th March 2022 serving a copy thereof on advocate-on-record
for the respondent, not less than five days before the date of hearing of
the appeal.
List the appeal for hearing on 15th March 2022, fairly at the
top.
The stay application (IA No. GA 1 of 2022) is disposed of.
As affidavits were not invited, allegations contained in the stay
application are deemed not to have been admitted.
( I. P. MUKERJI, J )
(ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.)
R. Bose
