The word ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower sense.
CASE SUMMARY
In Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another Vs Shyam Steel Industries Limited [2022 (3) CTC 781], the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that all orders are not appealable under letters patent (LP) and discussed the expression ‘judgment’ in the context of letters patent as against the context set out in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
- The Appellant/Defendant and Respondent/Plaintiff manufacture Thermo-mechanically treated bars (TMT Bars). While the Respondent/Plaintiff own a Trade Mark in respect of the word ‘SHYAM’ and used different label marks wherein the word ‘SHYAM’ is used, the Appellant/Defendant, bearing the name ‘Shyam’ uses the word in its products. Hence, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a Trademark infringement suit before the Calcutta High Court and sought injunction restraining the Appellant/Defendant from using the expression ‘Shyam’ in their products, and had also filed application for interim injunction.
- When the interim application, along with the suit came up for hearing, the single judge granted time to file affidavit – in – opposition, with a rider that no further adjournment will be given and directed the registry to post the matter after 3 weeks. Meanwhile, The Appellant/Defendant were also directed to maintain weekly accounts of sale of products under Class 6.
- Aggrieved, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench ‘modified’ the order of the single judge restraining the Appellant/Defendant from manufacturing, selling or advertising their goods with the mark ‘SHYAM’ or with a label or device containing the mark ‘SHYAM’.
- Aggrieved, the present appeal.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
- The Appellant argued that order under challenge before the Division Bench could not be construed as ‘judgment’ within the meaning of clause 15 of the LP, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji Vs Jayaben D. Kania and another [(1981) 4 SCC 8] and hence an appeal against the same could not have been maintainable under Clause 15, LP.
- The Respondent contended that ‘Shah Babulal’ only goes in their favour since the learned single judge had not granted interim injunction, a vital valuable right had been denied. Hence the Division Bench was right in intervening.
DECISION:
Appeal allowed and order of the Division Bench set aside.
(On the ground that the order of the Single judge could not be construed as ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15, LP.)
OBSERVATIONS/DISCUSSIONS:
- ‘Judgment’ is not defined under the LP. However, meaning given in the CPC, 1908 (or 1882) is not relatable to the expression ‘judgment’ in LP since LP came into force much earlier than CPC. Moreso, when LP does not define/use the expressions ‘order’, ‘decree’ etc anywhere.
- As a corollary to the above, the definition of ‘judgment’ linked with ‘decree’ in CPC in the context of ‘conclusive determination of rights between parties’, is restrictive and narrow and the same cannot be so with respect to LP.
- ‘Judgment’ in LP should receive a much wider and more liberal interpretation than the word ‘judgment’ in CPC. At the same time, it cannot be said that any order passed by a trial judge would amount to a judgment.
- The word ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader and not a narrower sense.
- Judgment is of three kinds:
A Final judgment – in which all the questions/issues in controversy are decided;
A preliminary judgment – (a) in which a suit is dismissed without getting into the merits on the preliminary objection raised by the Defendant;
(b) in which preliminary objection on maintainability of the suit is rejected and the suit proceeds further.
Intermediary or interlocutory judgment – Orders possession characteristics and trappings of finality. Includes most interlocutory orders containing quality of finality as clearly specified in clause (a) to (w) of Order 43 Rule 1, CPC and orders vitally affecting a valuable right of the Defendant.
- Every other order not having the quality or trappings of finality is not a judgment and hence cannot be challenged on appeal under the LP.
- Test laid down by Sir White C.J in Tuljaram Row case [ILR 35 Mad 1]. Illustrative list also laid down by the Supreme Court in this case.
(This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.)
Comments