Delhi High Court
Emami Limited vs Dabur India Limited on 5 September, 2018
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) No. 209/2018
Date of decision: 5th September, 2018
EMAMI LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, Mr.
Gopal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhimanyu
Bhandari, Ms. Roohina Dua and Mr. Cheitanya
Madan, Advocates.
versus
DABUR INDIA LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani
Jha, Mr. Manish Mishra and Ms. Akansha Singh,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL):
CM No. 36069/2018
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 209/2018 and CM No. 36068/2018
FAO(OS)(COMM) No.209 /2018 Page 1 of 4
Counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff in CS(COMM) No. 1074/2018 is
present on advance notice.
2. With the consent of the parties, we have taken up this intra-Court
appeal for hearing and disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The primary grievance raised by the appellant/defendant in
CS(COMM) No. 1074/2018 is to the direction given in the paragraph 11 of
the impugned order, which reads as under:-
"11. Learned senior counsel for the defendant
strongly refutes the claim of the plaintiff. Learned
senior counsel further submits that with respect to the
print media advertisement mentioned in para-15 of
the plaint, the defendant has discontinued the said
advertisement in July, 2018 and a new advertisement
is being prepared. Let the new advertisement be not
published by the defendant till the next date of
hearing."
4. Contention of the appellant/defendant is that the new advertisement is
under preparation and there cannot be any injunction barring and prohibiting
the appellant/defendant from publishing the new advertisement. Injunction
cannot be granted on assumption that a legal wrong would be committed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, fairly states that the
aforesaid observations should not be read to mean that the appellant cannot
publish a new advertisement. However, if, the respondent/plaintiff is
aggrieved by the new advertisement, they will be entitled to challenge and
pray for injunction etc. in accordance with law.
FAO(OS)(COMM) No.209 /2018 Page 2 of 4
6. We take the statement made by the counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff on record. This would satisfy the first objection raised
by the appellant/defendant. The impugned order is modified to this extent.
7. Second contention raised by the appellant/defendant relates to the
injunction and direction in respect of the advertisement uploaded on the
Youtube website. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has expressed
and accepted several allegations. At the same time, it is submitted that the
impugned order is non-reasoned.
8. We observe that the two contentions raised by the
appellant/defendant, that the impugned order is non-reasoned and that
several allegations against the appellant/defendant have been accepted are
contradictory in nature. Paragraph 14 of the impugned order clarifies that
the observations made in the impugned order are tentative and all
contentions shall be considered after completion of pleadings. It is
accordingly recorded that nothing mentioned in the impugned order would
be construed as final conclusion on merits. The interim application IA
No.10869/2018 is still pending before the learned single Judge.
9. The appellant/defendant have discontinued or as stated, suspended the
advertisement from circulation. Thereafter, the advertisement was uploaded
on the Youtube website. The impugned order also refers to the order passed
by the Advertising Standard Council of India. I.A. No. 10869/2018 is listed
for hearing before the learned single Judge on 1st October, 2018. At this
stage, therefore, no interference on this aspect is required.
FAO(OS)(COMM) No.209 /2018 Page 3 of 4
10. We accordingly disposed of the present appeal. We clarify that on the
second aspect we have not given any findings on merits as the matter is still
pending before the learned single Judge. This order would not be treated as
an order which decides any issue raised in IA No. 10869/2018. There would
be no order as to costs.
Dasti.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018
MR/VKR
