Delhi High Court
Stanvac Chemicals India Ltd. vs Sachin Pandey on 20 July, 2023
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 386/2023
STANVAC CHEMICALS INDIA LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Manish Biala, Mr. Devesh
Ratan and Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyaya, Advs.
Versus
SACHIN PANDEY ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr.
Nipun Katyal, Mr. Naved Ahmed and Mr.
Vivek Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 20.07.2023
I.A. 13137/2023 (Order XXXIX Rules 2A of the CPC)
1. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule
2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) alleging disobedience,
by the defendant, of the order dated 1 June 2023, passed by this Court
in IA 11015/2023 in CS (COMM) 386/2023. The injunction granted
in the said order is in the following terms:
"20. Till the next date of hearing, the defendant as well as all
others acting on its behalf, are restrained from dealing in any
products under the impugned marks (i) STANVAC, (ii)
, (iii) Stanvac product No. code Z906 Provar
anti track (SP) and (iv) STANVAC 8015 ANTI-TRACK
(Z906) or any other mark, identical or deceptively similar
thereto."
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:21.07.2023
12:46:48
2. Mr. Biala, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has sought to
support his plea of disobedience, by the defendant, of the injunction
granted by this Court on the basis of two documents, shown to the
Court during hearing. These are (i) two purchase orders dated 6 June
2023 and 7 June 2023, placed on the defendant by the Central
Railway, whereby the Central Railway has, against the bid dated 23
May 2023 of the defendant, ordered 415 contact cleaners of the make
"Stanvac Chemicals" and (ii) the webpages of the defendant's website
which contains links marked "Get Technical Data Sheet" which, if
clicked, take one to a page which provides a Technical Data Sheet for
"3001 Super Penetrant", with the marks and ,
figuring at the top of the page.
3. Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, learned Counsel for the defendant
submits that, after passing of the injunction order, there has been no
reply or dealing by the plaintiff in any goods bearing the marks which
stand injuncted by para 20 of the order dated 1 June 2023.
4. To my mind, neither of the documents cited by Mr Biala can
constitute disobedience of the injunction granted by this Court vide its
order dated 1 June 2023.
5. The terms of the injunction granted by this Court are clear and
categorical. The defendant has been restrained from dealing in any
products under the marks or any identical or deceptively
similar mark.
Signature Not Verified Neither of the documents shown to me by Mr. Biala can make
Signing Date:21.07.2023
12:46:48
out a case of breach of this injunction.
7. The purchase order dated 6 June 2023 has been placed on the
defendant by the Railways. The bid, in reference to which the
purchase order has been issued on 23 May 2023, prior to the passing
of the injunction order dated 1 June 2023.
8. Mere placing of the purchase order on the defendant by the
Railways cannot constitute a breach of the injunctive directions by the
defendant. No doubt if the defendant were to respond to the purchase
order or were to supply goods, as sought by the Railways, using the
injuncted marks, then, prima facie, a case of breach of the injunction
order would exist. No such action, on the part of the defendant is,
however, even alleged.
9. The same position applies with respect to the purchase order
dated 7 June 2023. It is not the case of the plaintiff that any goods
have been supplied by the defendant under either of these purchase
orders or that the defendant has even responded to either of these
purchase orders to the Railways undertaking to supply any goods.
10. Mr. Biala has also drawn my attention to the reference to LOA
No. DLS/PUNE/65235080/742768 dated 6 June 2023 in the purchase
order dated 7 June 2023. An LOA is the Letter of Acceptance by the
Railways of the bid of the defendant and, again, does not constitute a
representation, by the defendant, that it is continuing to use of any of
the injuncted marks.
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:21.07.2023
12:46:48
11. Apropos the website of the defendant and the link "Get
Technical Data Sheet Link", which re-directs to the page having
as one of the marks, represented at the top of the page, the
mere fact that the mark figures at the top of the page
which provides Technical Data with reference to one of the
defendant's products does not amount to dealing, by the defendant, of
any product having any of the impugned marks.
12. The Court cannot blindly issue notice on an application under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC as proceedings under the said
provision are in the nature of contempt and partake of` quasi-criminal
character.
13. No case for issuance of notice in the present application is made
out.
14. The application is, therefore, dismissed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JULY 20, 2023
rb
Signature Not Verified
Signing Date:21.07.2023
12:46:48
