Exide Industries Limited vs Mr. Debanjan Chakrabertty And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 736 Cal/2

OD-15
                                ORDER SHEET

                                TMA/2/2022

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                            ORIGINAL SIDE


                    EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
                             Versus
              MR. DEBANJAN CHAKRABERTTY AND ANR.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B. SARAF
  Date : 3rd March, 2022.

  [Via video conference]

                                                                     Appearance:
                                                      Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
                                                     Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Pradipta Bose, Adv.
                                                          Mr. S. Majumder, Adv.
                                                              ... for the appellant

                                               Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Adv.
                                                        Mr. Akash Munshi, Adv.
                                                          ... for the respondents

The Court: This is an appeal filed against an order passed by the

learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks in relation to an application for

registration of a Trade Mark.

Upon perusal of the order dated February 24, 2018 and the grounds

provided thereafter by an order dated April 19, 2021, I am of the view that

the order passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with

the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of

the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal

(L) No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso

Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.

I do agree that brevity is required, however, complete lack of reasons

upon which the authority has based the order cannot be accepted by this

Court.

In light of the same, the order is quashed and set aside.

I make it clear that all points shall be kept open before the authority.

The authority is directed to grant a fresh hearing to the petitioner and

thereafter pass a reasoned order in terms of Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks

Act, 1999 within a period of eight weeks from date.

Accordingly, TMA/2/2022 is disposed of.

(SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.) RS