Delhi High Court
Haldiram Bhujiawala Ltd vs M/S Haldiram India Pvt Ltd & Ors on 15 November, 2018
$~44 & 47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: 15.11.2018
+ CM(M) 1313/2018
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Akhil Sachar,
Mr. Kapil Rastogi, Ms. Aakriti Dawar &
Mr. Vibhu Anshuman, Advocates
versus
M/S HALDIRAM INDIA PVT LTD & ORS .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Neeraj Grover,
Mr.Naveen Grover and Mr. Gurinder
Singh, Advocates.
+ CM(M) 1383/2018
HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Akhil Sacher
and Mr. Kapil Rustagi, Advocates
versus
M/S HALDIRAM INDIA PVT LTD & ORS ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Neeraj Grover,
Mr.Naveen Grover and Mr. Anmol
Chadha, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
CM No.47391/2018 (exemption) in CM(M) 1383/2018
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM(M) 1313/2018 & 1383/2018 Page 1 of 5
2. The application is disposed of.
CM(M) 1313/2018, CM No.45118/2018 (stay)
CM(M) 1383/2018, CM No.47390/2018 (stay)
3. The impugned orders dated 24.09.2018, 03.10.2018, 04.10.2018 and
22.10.2018 passed by the Court of Shri Neeraj Gaur, Additional District Judge-
01, North District, Rohini, Delhi („ADJ‟) in Civil Suit bearing No. TM 13/18
are the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India being CM (M) 1313/2018.
4. The subsequent order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the said Court of
learned „ADJ‟ is further the subject matter of challenge in the petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being CM (M) 1383/2018.
5. On 25.10.2016, the respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 708/2016
(new No. TM 13/18) before the learned District Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts,
North Delhi, inter alia, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the
petitioner/defendant No. 1 from using outside the State of West Bengal, the
trade mark "Haldiram‟s" with or without any prefix or suffix including
"Prabhuji" and/or from indicating the origin of their goods "from the house of
the Haldiram‟s" or using the mark "Haldiram" and for delivery up of all the
infringing materials bearing the impugned marks and for an order of rendition
of accounts directing the petitioners to render their truthful accounts for the
purpose of ascertaining the profits earned by them.
6. It is submitted by both the learned counsel for the parties that no ex-parte
temporary injunction was granted to the respondent No. 1.
CM(M) 1313/2018 & 1383/2018 Page 2 of 5
7. Prior to commencement of the arguments on the interim application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, on 07.08.2018, an application was
filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under Section 151 CPC directing the
respondent/plaintiff not to place reliance on the order dated 15.01.2016 passed
by this Court in Contempt Petition No. M-62/11 (CCP 55/2000) till the order
dated 13.03.2018 in FAO 40/2016 is in operation and also direct the
respondent/plaintiff not to place reliance on the orders dated 10.12.1991 in Suit
No. 635/1992, 12.05.1999 in Suit No. 635/1992 (TM 2/11) and 27.09.2012 in
Suit No. 188/2003 (Old No. 635/1992 and new No. TM 2/11) till the order
dated 13.03.2018 in FAO 40/2016 passed by this Court is in operation.
8. The petitioner/respondent No. 1 filed another application under Section
151 CPC on the same day, praying for a direction that the application under
Section 151 CPC may be heard and decided prior to the adjudication of the
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the
respondent/plaintiff so as to ensure an effective compliance of the order dated
13.03.2018 passed by this Court in FAO 40/2016.
9. Arguments were heard at length by the learned „ADJ‟ on 24.09.2018,
03.10.2018 and 04.10.2018 on the interim application of the
respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
10. The arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants were
addressed on 22.10.2018 in the post-lunch session and the matter was
adjourned to 29.10.2018 with the direction to the parties to file written
submissions and pinpointed submissions.
CM(M) 1313/2018 & 1383/2018 Page 3 of 5
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that applications filed by
them under Section 151 CPC have so far not been disposed of and the learned
ADJ is bent upon to dispose of the application of the respondent/plaintiff under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC prior to deciding their applications which
would frustrate the order dated 13.03.2018 passed by this Court in FAO
40/2016.
12. On 02.11.2018, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted
before Ld. ADJ that "his statement may be recorded to the effect that the
contempt order has neither been pressed nor been relied by the plaintiff in
support of his arguments on the interim application. His statement has been
recorded separately."
13. The learned „ADJ‟ declined the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioner by impugned order dated 02.11.2018 by observing „Record has
revealed that the application dated 07-8-18 was moved prior to commencement
of arguments on the interim application. The prayer in the said application
were not to consider certain orders passed in the previous litigations between
the parties. I have always been of the view that the application, without
hearing the arguments, was preemptive in nature. Therefore, I had refrained
from passing order thereon because before hearing arguments, I could not
have preempted as to what were going to be the contours of my consideration
while deciding the interim application...........‟
14. The learned ADJ is required to dispose of the application of the
respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC in accordance
with law after hearing the permissible legal & factual submissions of both the
CM(M) 1313/2018 & 1383/2018 Page 4 of 5
parties. Applications filed by the petitioners/defendants on 07.08.2018 were
premature and filed merely on apprehensions, whims and fancies. Certainly no
separate orders to dispose of the applications dated 07.08.2018 filed under
Section 151 CPC are required to be passed by the learned „ADJ‟ which would
be considered and disposed of while deciding the application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC.
15. In view of the discussion, both the petitions being CM (M) 1313/2018
and CM (M) 1383/2018 are hereby dismissed along with pending applications
with no order as to costs.
VINOD GOEL, J.
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
rd
