Madras High Court
Varalakshmi Starch Industries ... vs V.Sundaresan on 13 July, 2021
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd.
No.127/1, Gandhi Road
Hastampatty
Salem 636 007. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. V.Sundaresan
2. S.Tamilarasi
3. S.Vimal Kumar
4. K.Sindu
5. M/s. Shri Varalakshmi Company
All residing at No.3, Komarapalaym
Mallur, Rasipuram Taluk
Namakkal District
Tamil Nadu 636 203.
Branch Office at 5/1, 6th Floor
Greenwood Apartments
Cenotaph Road, Teynampet
Chennai 600 018.
6. V.Anbalagan .. Respondents
__________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
Appeal filed against the Fair and Decretal Order of this Court
dated 27.04.2021 in A.No.1381 of 2021 in C.S.No.91 of 2021.
For Appellant : M/s. Lakshmi Kumarn and Sridharan
For Respondents : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, S.C.
For Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy
JUDGMENT
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The appeal is by the defendant in a trade mark infringement suit.
The grievance of the defendant is that despite the Court directing
return of the plaint to the plaintiff, the subsisting interim injunction has
been continued.
2. The more substantive appeals have been filed by the plaintiff,
challenging the very authority of this Court to return a plaint. An issue
of maintainability of the appeals by the plaintiff has arisen. Similar
questions under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
have arisen in other matters. These issues are proposed to be dealt
together and all matters of such kind have been tentatively scheduled
to be taken up on August 9, 2021.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
3. The defendant in the suit insists that it is entitled to the
interim order being vacated. Indeed, the defendant's appeal is
restricted to the continuation of the interim order despite the effective
conclusion of the suit as far as this court is concerned. The defendant
relies on an unreported order of the Supreme Court rendered on
January 14, 2019 in SLP (C) No.33902/2018 (M/s. Om Sakthy
Agencies (Madras) Pvt. Ltd v. M/s. Harsha Estates). In that case, there
was an issue of jurisdiction which arose and, during the pendency of
the appeal in this High Court, an interim order was passed restraining
the defendant from interfering with certain properties. The relevant
appeal as to territorial jurisdiction was disposed of by holding that this
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was in such context
that the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"In our considered view, while the suit was
directed to be presented before the court of
competent territorial jurisdiction, the granting of
interim order or otherwise should have been left to
the discretion of the transferee court."
4. Despite such observation, however, the interim order granted
was not interfered with and the Supreme Court merely said that the
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
transferee court would take a decision on the interim relief
uninfluenced by the observations in the order of this court granting
interim relief.
5. The unreported order is not an authority for the proposition
that a subsisting interim order cannot be continued while a plaint is
returned.
6. The return of plaint implies that the Court perceives that the
Court does not have the authority to entertain or proceed with the
action. The finding of such count has no nexus with the merits of the
claim of the plaintiff.
7. At the time that the interim order was originally granted,
there was no challenge to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the
suit and the court was guided purely by the merits of the plaintiff's
claim to issue an interim injunction. It is usually the practice,
particularly when returning a plaint, to continue any subsisting order of
injunction since the return of the plaint has nothing to do with the
merits of the claim, but only pertains to the authority of the forum to
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
receive the action. However, the subsisting injunction is generally
limited in duration, as in this case, and is also made subject to the
decision of the transferee court, as has also been done in this case.
8. Accordingly, OSA No.20 of 2021 is dismissed as the order
impugned does not call for any interference. There will be no order as
to costs.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
13.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
kpl
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
(kpl)
O.S.A.(CAD) No.20 of 2021
13.07.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
