Raghuveer Metal Industries Ltd v. Kamdhenu Ltd

$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 644/2016 RAGHUVEER METAL INDUSTRIES LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ravi Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Dr.Harsh Surana, Abhishek Chaudhary, Mr.Sanchit Garga & Col. P.S. Sharma, Advocates versus KAMDHENU LTD ..... Respondent Through Mr.Akhil Sibal, Mr.S.K. Bansal, Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr.A.K. Sahu & Mr.Gaurav Gogia, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 11.07.2016 By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn order dated 09.06.2016 by which order the learned trial court passed an ex-parte adinterim injunction. By the impugned order dated 09.06.2016, the learned trial court restrained the petitioners from using, manufacturing etc. TMT Bars and allied and cognate goods or in any other goods the trademark/label KAMDHENU or any other trademark/label identical with or deceptively similar to the respondent's trademark/label/trade name KAMDHENU etc. It also appears that by the said order, the learned trial court did not allow the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, Order XXXIX Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC to appoint a Local Commissioner to make an inventory of goods using the said trademark.

The respondent filed a petition being CM (M) No.620/2016 which was allowed by this Court on 20.06.2016 appointing Local Commissioners to make an inventory of TMT Bars etc. using the impugned trademark/label KAMDHENU.

By the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that a total stock of finished goods is lying with the petitioner/sister concerns valued at about Rs.2,80,00,000.00 (two crores eighty lakhs). Other details of losses etc. are stated in the petition.

It is urged that the said impugned order dated 09.06.2016 may be set aside to the extent that the petitioner may be allowed to sell stock lying with petitioner using the said trademark.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.06.2016 shows that an exparte interim injunction was passed against the petitioner. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should first approach the concerned trial court with necessary details as spelled out in the present petition and seek appropriate relief before the learned trial court.

With these observations, the present petition is disposed of. It would be open to the petitioner to urge before the learned trial court for expeditious disposal of such appropriate application that may be filed. This order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Dasti.

JAYANT NATH, J.

JULY 11, 2016/v