Gagandeep Singh vs Ravinder Kaur & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2964 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: July 24, 2009
                                                     Date of Order: July 31, 2009

+Arb. Appeal 25/2008
%                                                                     31.07.2009
     Gagandeep Singh                                            ...Appellant
     Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate

       Versus

       Ravinder Kaur & Anr.                              ...Respondents
       Through: Mr. J.S. Bhasin and Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocates


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act,

1996 ("the Act" for short) has been preferred by the appellant against the

order of learned Arbitrator passed on an application under Section 17 of the

Act.

2. The parties had a dispute in respect of division of partnership firm

which had two places of business at Ajmal Khan Road, New Delhi, one was at

15-A, Ground Floor, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road and the other was at the

basement of 15-A/26, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road. After disputes arose, under

directions of this Court both the parties were appointed receivers of the

respective shops in their occupation now i.e. one of the ground floors and the

other of the basement. The parties had also a dispute in respect of

trademark "Klick". Both the parties started using the same trademark "Klick"

Arb. Appeal 25/2008 Gagandeep Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Anr. Page 1 Of 4 and a suit in respect of the said trademark is also pending between the

parties about the right to use the trademark "Klick". However, no interim

injunction has been granted in favour of either of the parties giving exclusive

right to use the trademark "Klick". The result is that both the parties are

having same business using same trademark, one at the main road at ground

floor and the other at the basement in a lane. The dispute between the

parties regarding partnership and its assets were referred to the arbitrator

and is pending before the arbitrator. An application was made by petitioner

before the Arbitrator that the respondent, whose shop was in the basement in

side lane, should be restrained from posting one of his persons/employees at

the mouth of the lane near the shop of the appellant, indicating that the

business having trademark "Klick" was going on in the lane.

3. In order to decide this application of the petitioner, the learned

arbitrator went to the business place in presence of both the parties along

with their respective counsels. He found that the respondent had fixed a

make shift signboard outside the lane in a flowerpot indicating the trademark

and name of the shop and an arrow was pointing towards the basement shop.

The flower pot was being put on a gutter cover of the lane and it was around

10-11 ft. away from the ground floor shop, though it was somewhat toward

the entry of the ground floor shop. One boy was standing with his hand on the

signboard. The allegations of the appellant was that the said boy or other

employee/agent of respondent used to divert the customers of ground floor

shop towards the basement either by gestures or by moving his hand and it

sometimes lead to clash between the two parties. Learned arbitrator found

that there was no electricity poll or telephone poll outside the gali/lane on

which the signboard could be fixed. He also found that many shopkeepers

Arb. Appeal 25/2008 Gagandeep Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Anr. Page 2 Of 4 had put their signboards on telephone polls and electricity polls indicating the

shop in the lanes. He also found that the applicant/appellant has also put a

signboard in front of his shop, above the footpath. It was an admitted case

that the trademark "Klick" was earlier registered in the name of respondent

Mr. Jagbir Singh and later on in the name of father of the applicant and Jagbir

Singh. The learned Arbitrator made efforts for settlement. A meeting was held

on 25th September 2008 in presence of the arbitrator. After this meeting Mr.

Gagandeep Singh and Mr. Jasbir Singh [on behalf of his wife Ms. Ravinder

Kaur] made a joint statement before the Arbitrator that they will not install a

new signboard in respect of their shops and will maintain status quo as on the

date of inspection till the order was passed on pending applications. On the

basis of this joint statement and inspection, learned arbitrator passed an

order that the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of boards.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that the order of learned

arbitrator was bad since the quarrel used to take place between the parties

because of board having been placed in front of the shop of appellant and the

appellants' customers used to be attracted by respondents' agent and,

therefore, this Court should allow the appeal of appellant and respondent

should be restrained from putting signboard at the corner of the lane.

5. The impugned order was passed by the learned Arbitrator on the basis

of joint statement made by the parties before him that they shall maintain

status quo and no new signboard shall be installed. It is not in dispute that

the respondent had not installed any new board and only one board

indicating the shop of respondent was being maintained at the corner of lane.

It is also not disputed that the appellant had also put the signboard outside

Arb. Appeal 25/2008 Gagandeep Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Anr. Page 3 Of 4 his shop on the pavement. Since the shop of the appellant is on the ground

floor on the main road, appellant is obviously having an advantage of the

direct approach of the customers to his shop while the shop of respondent is

inside the lane and may not even be noticed by the customers using the

trademark "Klick". That seems to be reason that the respondent was

compelled to put a signboard on the corner of the lane which indicates that

he had also a shop and was entitled to use the trademark "Klick" and is in the

same business, till the matter was not settled between the parties through

legal proceedings.

6. I find that the there was no infirmity in the order passed by learned

arbitrator who directed the parties to maintain status quo. The appeal is

hereby dismissed being without any merits.

July 31, 2009                                       SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




Arb. Appeal 25/2008   Gagandeep Singh v. Ravinder Kaur & Anr.     Page 4 Of 4