M/S.Classic Coconut Dry Milk ... vs Central Food Technological ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3380 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 18903 OF 2012
PETITIONER:

          M/S.CLASSIC COCONUT DRY MILK (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
          VII/266-A, KANIPPAYYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.K.SULAIMAN.

          BY ADV SRI.JAIRAM.V.MENON



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
          CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
          CHELUVAMBA MANSION, V.V MOHALLA
          MYSORE - 570 020

    2     THE SECRETARY
          COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD, KERALA BHAVAN,
          SRVHS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682011.

    3     THE SECRETARY
          DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES,
          GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.S.MANU, ASG OF INDIA
          SRI.O..O.V.MANIPRASAD
          SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE


          SRI.S.MANU, ASGI, SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 18903 OF 2012

                                             2


                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2022

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers.

"(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext P4 letter of the 1 st respondent demanding royalty dues from the petitioner,

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1 st respondent to produce before this Hon'ble Court the details of the technology over which the 1st and 2nd respondents have intellectual property rights in the process of manufacturing spray dried coconut milk powder,

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1 st and 2nd respondents to transfer to the petitioner the technology of manufacturing spray dried coconut milk powder over which they have intellectual property right,

(iv) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents not to transfer the technology of manufacturing spray dried coconut milk powder over which they have intellectual property right to any person before it is transferred to the petitioner,

(v) To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems justified in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner and respondents entered into Ext.P2

agreement by which Ext.P3 technology was handed over to the

petitioner. Subsequently, certain dispute arises between petitioner

and respondents. Consequently, Ext.P4 was issued by the 1 st

respondent directing the petitioner to remit the royalty arrears. WP(C) NO. 18903 OF 2012

3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention in

the writ petition. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the

respondents vehemently opposed the same.

4. After going through the pleadings and the stand of

respondents, it is clear that, this dispute cannot be resolved in a writ

petition invoking the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Since this writ petition is pending before this Court from 2012

onwards, liberty can be given to petitioner to agitate the case before

the civil court. If any such proceedings are initiated by the petitioner

before the civil court, time during which this writ petition is pending

before this Court will be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

With the above observations, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE spk WP(C) NO. 18903 OF 2012

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18903/2012

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION DATED 09-02-2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA & LAKSHDWEEP TO THE PETITIONER COMPANY.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL DOSSIER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23RD AUGUST 2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28TH SEPTEMBER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 19-01 2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 19-01

2012 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXT.P8 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10                  TRUE      COPY      OF      THE      LETTER
                             NO.FT/22(101)/94/E.    VIII   DATED    17TH

FEBRUARY 2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER.

WP(C) NO. 18903 OF 2012

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit.R1(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE TECHNICAL DOSSIER

Exhibit.R1(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2011

FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit.R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED

14.03.2012.