Madras High Court
M/S.Apollo Meters Pvt Ltd vs M/S.Nutan Valve (India) on 30 June, 2021
C.S.No.831 of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.No.831 of 2001
M/s.Apollo Meters Pvt Ltd,
Rep. by its Managing Director
Mr.Mohammed Ismail Mohamedu Gany
No.24, Renganathan Street,
Hasti Tower, 1st Flor,
A-Flat, T.Nagar,
Chennai – 600 017. ...Plaintiff
.Vs.
1.M/s.Nutan Valve (India),
D-1 Focal Point
Jalandhar – 144 004.
Punjab.
2.M/s.Sri Mookambigai Pipe Traders,
131/19-A, S.N.High Road,
Tirunelveli Junction,
Tirunelveli – 627 001.
3.M/s.Pandiyan Steels,
557, Sathi Road,
Erode – 638 003. ... Defendants
Page No.1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.831 of 2001
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and
under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 55 of
Copyrights Act, 1957 praying for a judgment and decree for:
a) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants by
themselves, their servants, agents, or any one claiming through them
from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, directly or indirectly
dealing in “Flow Control Valve” device made on the basis of dismantling
the plaintiff's invented “Flow Control Valve” and made out of working
drawings from the sketches of such dismantled product which amounted
to infringement of plaintiff's Engineering Drawings of their “Flow
Control Valve” device made therefrom;
b) Directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff all the
unused pirated “Flow Control Valve” device together with dies and
blocks for the purpose of manufacturing the same for destruction and
c) Directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the suit
For Plaintiff : No appearance
For Defendants : No appearance
********
Page No.2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.831 of 2001
JUDGMENT
The suit is one for infringement of copyrights, wherein, the
plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from selling or
offering for sale “Flow Control Valve” device made on the basis of the
working drawings of the plaintiff. The dispute is a commercial dispute
within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015. Hence, the jurisdiction is so determined and this Commercial
Division takes cognizance of the suit.
2. Even on 28.04.2021, the learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff had reported “no instructions” on the ground that the plaintiff
had taken back the case papers along with the consent for change of
vakalat very long back.
3. The Registry was directed to print the name of the plaintiff and
post the matter today. Despite the name of the plaintiff having been
printed in the cause list, none appeared for the plaintiff. The suit is of the
year 2001. I, do not propose to adjourn the suit for appearance of the
plaintiff.
Page No.3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.831 of 2001
4. The suit is therefore dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
30.06.2021
dsa
Index : No
Internet : Yes
Non-speaking order
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the plaintiff : Nil
List of the witnesses examined on the side of the defendants: Nil
List of Exhibits marked on the side of the defendants: Nil
30.06.2021
dsa
Page No.4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.831 of 2001
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.S.No.831 of 2001
30.06.2021
Page No.5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
