Trademark Infringement: Patna High Court Asks District Court To Expedite Trial In Suit Filed By Hero Cycle Against Hero Ecotech In 2014
The Patna High Court has dismissed Punjab-based Hero Cycle Limited's petition against a Patna Court's decision to recall its order of debarring the defendants from filing written statement in a 2014 trademark infringement suit.Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra noted that the Supreme Court, while restoring injunction granted in favour of Hero Cycle in 2016, had requested the trial court to expedite...
The Patna High Court has dismissed Punjab-based Hero Cycle Limited's petition against a Patna Court's decision to recall its order of debarring the defendants from filing written statement in a 2014 trademark infringement suit.
Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra noted that the Supreme Court, while restoring injunction granted in favour of Hero Cycle in 2016, had requested the trial court to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible.
"In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible without giving unnecessary adjournment and both the parties are directed to cooperate the trial Court in early disposal of the title suit," the court said.
Hero Cycle in 2014 filed the suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the infringement of its registered trademark 'HERO' in relation to bicycles and bicycle parts. Hero Ecotech Limited, its Director Vijay Munjal and Kumar Cycle Store are defendants in the suit pending before a Patna Court.
The trial court had initially debarred the Hero Ecotech and its Director from filing the written statement due to the delay but later recalled its order based on an application filed by the defendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The written statement was permitted to be accepted subject to cost of Rs 5,000.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the recall order contradicted the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was contended that the respondents' written statement was not filed within the statutory period, and no application for condonation of delay was submitted. The counsel further asserted that the Court failed to provide a valid reason for accepting the written statement after the stipulated time, and thus, the impugned order should be set aside.
On the other hand, the senior counsel representing the respondents maintained that the defendants had filed their written statement within the time prescribed by the Trial Court. Additionally, they argued that the plaintiffs did not object to the order granting an extension, which subsequently attained finality. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiffs cannot raise this issue in a different stage of the same proceeding, citing the principle of res judicata applicable in different stages of the same proceeding.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Mishra said there is no illegality or substantive procedural irregularity for interference by the court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Title: Hero Cycle Limited And Anr Vs. Hero Ecotech Limited And Ors Civil Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No.1036 Of 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 65
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s:
Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate with Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate, Mr. Shreyash Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Abhay Nath, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate, Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate, Ms. Sweta Raj, Advocate, Ms. Shatakshi Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondent/s:
Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Shanker Tiwari, Advocate