Madras High Court
G.Saravanan vs M/S.R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar on 27 June, 2022
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.8635 & 8638 of 2022
G.Saravanan .. Appellant in both CMAs
Vs.
M/s.R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar,
rep by its Partner S.Bhasker
138, Muthur Road, Kangeyam,
Tiruppur District – 638 701,
Tamil Nadu. .. Respondent in both CMAs
Appeals filed under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act
read with Order 43 Rule 1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the
order dated 29.04.2022 passed in I.A.Nos.320 & 321 of 2021 in
C.O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tirupur.
For Appellant : Mr.Satish Parasaran, Senior Counsel
(in both CMAs) for Mr.S.Diwakar
For Respondent : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy
Page 1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
(JUDGMENT WAS MADE BY M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
Challenging the order passed in I.A.Nos.320 & 321 of 2021 in
C.O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruppur,
the defendant has filed the above appeals.
2.The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in C.O.S.No.17 of 2021
seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from passing off
his/their goods by using the artistic work, trade dress and color combination
of yellow and brown used by the plaintiff having the trademark registration
products that are identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's
trademark, artistic work, product and trade dress in respect of ghee and
thereby restraining the defendant in any manner from passing off.
3.In the said suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application in
I.A.No.320 of 2021 seeking for temporary injunction restraining the
respondent from passing off his goods by using the artistic work, trade
dress and color combination of yellow and brown used by the plaintiff
Page 2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
having the trademark registration No.4531234 for the logo “RKG” and the
packing style and over all get up of the product with any other word which
are identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark,
artistic work, product and trade dress and restrained the defendant from
passing off till disposal of the suit. The respondent/plaintiff also filed
another application in I.A.No.321 of 2021 seeking for temporary injunction
restraining the respondent from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff by
using the artistic work, trade dress and color combination of yellow and
brown “GVG” ghee which are identical and deceptively similar to that of
the plaintiff's artistic work, color combination and trade dress and thereby
restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff till
disposal of the suit.
4.It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in
April 2021 along with the applications seeking for interim injunction.
Though the trial Court has not granted any interim order in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff till 28.04.2022, on 29.04.2022, the trial Court allowed
both the applications and granted orders of injunction as prayed for in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Immediately on obtaining the certified
Page 3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
copy of the order passed in I.A.Nos.320 & 321 of 2021 on 06.05.2022, the
defendant filed the above appeals on 09.05.2022 and obtained an order of
interim stay on 11.05.2022. Therefore, it is evident that the respondent/
plaintiff had the benefit of interim injunction granted by the trial Court on
29.04.2022 only for a brief period of about 12 days (i.e.) upto 11.05.2022.
5.Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently contended that though the trial Court refused to grant
an interim order in favour of the respondent/plaintiff for more than a year,
only on 29.04.2022, the applications filed by the respondent, seeking for
interim injunction, were allowed. Further, the learned senior counsel
submitted that the said orders of injunction granted by the trial Court has
been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2022 itself. The
learned senior counsel also submitted that the suit itself is ripe for trial,
hence, the order of stay granted by the Division Bench of this Court may
continue and the trial Court maybe directed to dispose of the suit within a
time frame.
Page 4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
6.Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent/plaintiff submitted that the trial Court, after taking into
consideration the merits in the case of the respondent/plaintiff, had granted
injunction in their favour on 29.04.2022 and that the findings rendered by
the trial Court would make it clear that the respondent/plaintiff had
established their case.
7.Having regard to the submissions made by the learned senior
counsel on either side, it cannot be disputed that the respondent/plaintiff
though did not have the benefit of injunction for a period of more than a
year, they obtained the order of injunction on 29.04.2022 and enjoyed the
order of injunction only for a period of 12 says (i.e.) upto the grant of
interim stay by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2022.
8.The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent also
admitted that the suit is ripe for trial, hence, the trial Court may be directed
to dispose of the suit within a time frame.
Page 5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
9.Since the suit is still pending before the trial Court, we are not
giving any finding as to the correctness of the order passed in the
applications for the reason that any finding given by this Court would
prejudice the mind of the trial Court. In these circumstances, without
expressing any opinion with regard to the correctness of the findings
rendered by the trial Court, we are of the view that the trial Court should be
directed to dispose of the suit within a time frame. Since the
respondent/plaintiff had the benefit of interim injunction only for a brief
period of about 12 days, the same cannot be allowed to continue till the
disposal of the suit. Accordingly, we direct the Principal District Judge,
Tiruppur to dispose of the suit in C.O.S.No.17 of 2021, on merits and in
accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. Till the disposal of the suit, the order passed in
I.A.Nos.320 & 321 of 2021 in C.O.S.No.17 of 2021 shall remain
suspended.
10.With these observations, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are
disposed of.
Page 6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
11.Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent, on instructions, submitted that the appellant and the
respondent would co-operate for the disposal of the suit within a period of
two months without seeking for any unnecessary adjournments. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index : Yes/No [M.D., J.] [S.M., J.]
va 27.06.2022
Page 7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
va
C.M.A.Nos.1213 & 1214 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.8635 & 8638 of 2022
27.06.2022
Page 8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
