SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND versus SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND versus SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

The Single Judge's order of 2 April 2019, which granted the defendants time to file affidavit-in-opposition and adjourned consideration of an ad-interim injunction for three weeks while directing weekly sales accounts, did not possess the traits and trappings of finality and therefore was not a 'judgment' within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; consequently the intra-court appeal to the Division Bench was not tenable. The Division Bench erred in deciding the interlocutory injunction on merits instead of remitting to the trial court and failed to apply or record consideration of the established injunction tests (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury). The matter is...

Parties
Appellants/defendants: SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER; Respondent/plaintiff: SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Division Bench Judgment of High Court (intra Court Appeal Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Letters Patent Appeal, Meaning of 'judgment', Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off, Order XXXIX Rr.1 2 CPC, Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Appellate Review Judicial Hierarchy Temporary Injunction Letters Patent Appeal Meaning of 'judgment' Trade Mark Infringement +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Appellants/defendants

SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court Against Division Bench Judgment of High Court (intra Court Appeal Under Clause 15 of Letters Patent)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Single Judge's order dated 2 April 2019 amounted to a 'judgment' under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and was therefore appealable to the Division Bench
  2. 2 Whether the Division Bench erred in deciding the interlocutory injunction application on merits instead of relegating it to the trial court
  3. 3 Whether the Division Bench applied the established tests for grant of interim injunction (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury) and whether it usurped the trial court's discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The Single Judge's order of 2 April 2019, which granted the defendants time to file affidavit-in-opposition and adjourned consideration of an ad-interim injunction for three weeks while directing weekly sales accounts, did not possess the traits and trappings of finality and therefore was not a 'judgment' within Clause 15 of the Letters Patent; consequently the intra-court appeal to the Division Bench was not tenable. The Division Bench erred in deciding the interlocutory injunction on merits instead of remitting to the trial court and failed to apply or record consideration of the established injunction tests (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury). The matter is...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 24 December 2019 quashed and set aside
  • Learned Single Judge directed to decide the respondent's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC expeditiously and in any case within six weeks from date of Supreme Court judgment