Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 – Temporary Injunction – Both appellants and respondents were manufacturers and sellers of Thermo-Mechanically treated bars (TMT bars) – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit before Single Judge of High Court claiming infringement of their registered trade mark ‘SHYAM’ and its variants and also for passing off by the appellantsdefendants – Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction came to be filed – The application claimed an order of injunction restraining appellants-defendants from infringing respondent-plaintiff’s trade mark ‘SHYAM’ – The Single Judge made a prima facie observation that ‘SHYAM’ being a part of the business name of appellants-defendants, no injunction should be passed to restrain the appellants-defendants from using the said word ‘SHYAM’ on their packaging; and directed the matter to be listed after three weeks – Respondent-plaintiff filed intra-court appeal – Division Bench of High Court granted injunction restraining the appellants from using the mark ‘SHYAM’ till disposal of the suit – ‘Tenability of appeal’ against the order of Single Judge – Correctness of the ‘approach of the Division Bench’– Held: Each and every order passed by trial judge could not be construed to be “judgment” – To be construed as a “judgment”, order must have the traits and trapping of finality and such order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties – Though the order of the Single Judge might have caused some inconvenience and prejudice to the respondent, the same could not be treated as ‘judgment’ – The order of Single Judge did not contain traits and trappings of finality – The said order cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ and the appeal to the Division Bench was not tenable – Approach of the Division Bench was totally contrary to the various principles of law – If the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of the courts – Division Bench failed to observe as how the discretion exercised by the Single Judge was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely – There was no discussion as to how a prima facie case was made out by the respondent – Tests of ‘balance of convenience’ and ‘irreparable injury’ were not even mentioned – Approach of Division Bench of High Court was totally unwarranted and uncalled for.
Appeal – Letters Patent appeal – Term ‘judgment’ used in Letters Patent – Held: Though the term ‘judgment’ used in Letters Patent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to the term ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much wider and more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, each and every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed to be a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there will be no end to the number of orders which would be appealable under the Letters Patent – The word ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not in a narrower sense – Where an order vitally affects a valuable right of the defendants, it will undoubtedly be treated as a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent so as to be appealable to a larger Bench.
Injunction – Temporary Injunction – Grant of – Three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Judiciary – Hierarchy of courts – Role of appellate court – Held: An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court are recorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by the trial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof within the limited area available – If the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts.
Words and Phrases – Term ‘judgment’ – Meaning of.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Though the term ‘judgment’ used in Letters Patent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to the term ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much wider and more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, each and every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed to be a judgment’ inasmuch as there will be no end to the number of orders which would be appealable under the Letters Patent. The word ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not in a narrower sense. Where an order vitally affects a valuable right of the defendants, it will undoubtedly be treated as a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent so as to be appealable to a larger Bench. [Para 17][1191-D-F]
Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania and Another (1981) 4 SCC 8: [1982] 1 SCR 187- relied on.
1.2. Whether an order impugned would be a ‘judgment’ within the scope of Clause 15 of Letters Patent, would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. However, for such an order to be construed as a ‘judgment’, it must have the traits and trappings of finality. To come within the ambit of ‘judgment’, such an order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties, which works serious injustice to the party concerned. Each and every order passed by the Court during the course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to one of the parties, cannot be treated as a ‘judgment’. If such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open against the order of Single Judge. [Para 21][1193B-D]
1.3. In the present case, there was no adjudication with regard to the rights of the respondent-plaintiff to get an ad-interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Though by postponement of the issue with regard to grant of ad-interim injunction, the order might have caused some inconvenience and may be, to some extent, prejudice to the respondent-plaintiff; the same could not be treated as a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there was no conclusive finding as to whether the respondent-plaintiff was entitled for grant of ad-interim injunction or not. As such, the order passed by the Single Judge did not contain the traits and trappings of finality. If it is held otherwise, this will open a floodgate of appeals for parties who may even challenge the order of adjournment or grant of time to the other side to file affidavit-in-reply. The order dated 2nd April 2019 of the Single Judge of the High Court cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent and as such, the appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court was not tenable. [Para 25][1194-C-F]
2. It is difficult to appreciate the anxiety on the part of the Division Bench of the High Court to itself dispose of the interlocutory application instead of relegating it to the court below for its disposal. When the Division Bench of the High Court itself took 8-9 months to decide the appeal, it is difficult to understand as to what the Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court meant by “unnecessary prolongation of the litigation and utter wastage of time”. If the Judges of the Division Bench were so much concerned with the prolongation of litigation, they could have very well requested the Single Judge to decide the injunction application within a stipulated period. Instead of waiting for a period of 8-9 months, this could have been done by them at the very first instance when the appeal was listed. The hierarchy of the trial court and the appellate court exists so that the trial court exercises its discretion upon the settled principles of law. An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court are recorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by the trial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof within the limited area available. If the appellate court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of courts. [Para 29][1195-FH; 1196-A-B]
3.1. The Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have not even, for namesake, observed as to how the discretion exercised by the Single Judge was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely. [Para 35][1198-G]
3.2 It is a settled principle of law that while considering the question of grant of interim injunction, the courts are required to consider the three tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. Besides a stray observation that the respondent-plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, there is no discussion as to how a prima facie case was made out by the respondent-plaintiff. In any case, insofar as the tests of balance of convenience and irreparable injury are concerned, there is not even a mention with regard to these in the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. The approach of the Division Bench of the High Court was totally unwarranted and uncalled for. [Para 36][1199-B-E]
Wander Ltd. and Another v. Antox India P. Ltd (1990) Supp SCC 727; Monsanto Technology LLC Through
the authorized representative Ms Natalia Voruz and Others v. Nuziveedu Seeds Limited Through Director and Others (2019) 3 SCC 381 : [2019] 1 SCR 145 and Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 61 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.