Madras High Court
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd on 6 December, 2023
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
C.S.No.381 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.S.No.381 of 2014
M/s.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.M.Arun,
No.53, Rajasekaran Street,
(Opp: Kalyani Hospital, Radhakrishnan Salai),
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd.,
Represented by its Director Mr.Dinesh Sahara,
Having local office at:
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd., No.40/41,
Church Street,
Royapuram, Chennai - 600 013.
2. Interactive Television Pvt. Ltd.,
Having local office at No.2/2, Ground Floor, Poes Road,
Teynampet, Chennai - 18.
3. Group M.Media India Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by Ms.Kavitha Srinivasan,
13/7, 5th Main Road, Nandanam Extension,
Chennai - 600 045. ... Defendants
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read
with Order VII Rule I of C.P.C. seeking the following reliefs:
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.381 of 2014
a) perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendants, their distributors,
marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockist, representatives, advertisers,
successors-in- business, assigns or any one claiming through or under them
from telecasting and/or exhibiting or podcasting offending advertisement
through television channels and satellite channels and or exhibiting in
cinema theatre/movie screen the story board of which are filed as a plaint
document along with soft copy of the advertisement in a compact disc
disparaging the Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" refined sunflower oil in the guise
of comparative advertisement in any other manner whether directly or
indirectly to promote the 1st Defendant Sunrich Sunflower Oil;
b. perpetual injunction to restrain the Defendant, their distributors,
marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockist, representatives, advertisers,
successors-in- business, assigns or any one claiming rights through them or
under them from in any manner resorting to unfair disparagement of the
Plaintiff's "Gold Winner" Refined Sunflower oil under the guise of
comparative advertisement in any other manner whatsoever;
c. restraining the Defendants, their men, agents and affiliates
permanently by way of a permanent injunction from adopting the Plaintiff's
Registered Trade Mark "Gold Winner" for Sunflower Oil registered, vide.
T.M.No.605323 in Class 29, T.M. No. 1147963 in Class 29, T.M.No.
1399086 in Class 29 and Copyright in the artistic work in the trade dress
and the label in the Pouch for packing "Gold Winner Refined Sunflower
Oil" registered, vide. Registration No.A68242/2005 of the Plaintiff whether
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.381 of 2014
directly or indirectly containing aforesaid trade mark and trade dress of the
Plaintiff whether identical, similar or deceptively similar, for any purpose or
for advertising and /or promoting any of their product without authorization
from the Plaintiff;
d. Jointly and severally directed the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff
a sum of Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs (Rs.25,00,000/-) as damages for the
loss inflicted upon the Plaintiffs by conceiving and telecasting and
exhibiting the offensive disparaging advertisement to promote 1st
Defendant Sunrich refined sunflower oil in enclosed story board and soft
copy of the aforesaid;
e. For costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.R.Anish Kumar
For Defendants : Ms.R.Supraja
for Mr.Meelan Prabu
for D1
Mr.K.F.Manavalan
for D2 and D3
JUDGMENT
An Affidavit of Undertaking has been filed on behalf of the new
management of the first defendant Company. Pursuant to the orders passed
by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, the first defendant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
now been takenover by M/s.Patanjali Foods Ltd. The Certificate of
Incorporation has also been enclosed as Annexure - A in the affidavit of
undertaking. In paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, filed on behalf of the first
defendant, by the new management, it has been stated as follows:
"7. That the 1 Defendant after being taken over
by the new management has undertaken an assessment
of pending litigations against the 1 Defendant,
including the subject matter of the present suit viz., the
impugned advertisement, the story board of which is
filed as Plaint Document Nos.1 and 2. The 1 Defendant
though is not in agreement with the sweeping claims
made by the Plaintiff in abstract which impinge upon
the 1st Defendant's right of commercial speech
completely, since the 1st Defendant under the new
management is not interested in telecasting the subject
impugned advertisement in future and with a view to
not precipitate the issue and to amicably resolve the
present suit, the 1st Defendant undertakes not to
telecast or use the impugned advertisement, the story
board of which has been filed as Plaint Document Nos.
1 and 2 in any language in future. Accordingly, and
without admitting to any of the claims or allegations
made by the plaintiff in the present suit, the 1
Defendant is willing to submit to an order and decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of Permanent Injunction in the present suit as under:
"Permanent Injunction restraining the 1st
Defendant, their distributors, marketers, franchisees,
dealers, agents, stockist, representatives, advertisers,
successors-in-business, assigns or anyone claiming
through or under them from telecasting and/ or
exhibiting or podcasting the offending advertisement,
the story board of which is filed as Plaint Document
Nos. 1 & 2 through television channels and satellite
channels and/or exhibiting in Cinema theatre/ movie
screens"
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff on instructions would submit
that after recording the undertaking given by the first defendant as disclosed
in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit of undertaking dated 22.11.2023, this Suit
can be closed.
3. As seen from paragraph No.7 of the affidavit of undertaking dated
22.11.2023, the first defendant has undertaken not to telecast the impugned
advertisement and story board which has been filed as plaint document
Nos.1 and 2 in any language in future. However, they have also stated that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
they are not admitting to any of the claims or allegations made by the
plaintiff in the present suit. After recording the rival submissions and after
recording the undertaking given by the first defendant as disclosed in
paragraph No.7 of their affidavit of undertaking dated 22.11.2023, this suit
is closed. No costs.
06.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation Case: Yes / No
ab
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE. J.,
ab
06.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
