VISHWA MITTER versus O. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS

VISHWA MITTER versus O. P. PODDAR AND OTHERS

The Magistrate cannot decline to take cognizance of a complaint for offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 IPC solely on the ground that the complainant is not the registered owner of the trade mark, as there is no statutory provision prescribing such eligibility. Anyone, including a dealer or constituted attorney with a subsisting interest, may file such a complaint unless an explicit bar exists.

Parties
Appellant: Vishwa Mitter; Respondent: O.P. Poddar and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 September 1983
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Order in Criminal Revision No. 652 of 1980, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Marks, Cognizance of Offences, Qualification to File Complaint, Offences Under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, Section 420 IPC
Criminal Law Intellectual Property Trade Marks Cognizance of Offences Qualification to File Complaint Offences Under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act Section 420 IPC

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishwa Mitter

Appellant

O.P. Poddar and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Order in Criminal Revision No. 652 of 1980, Punjab and Haryana High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dealer or constituted attorney who is not the registered owner of a trade mark is competent to file a complaint for offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 IPC.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate can decline to take cognizance of such a complaint solely on the ground of complainant's competence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate cannot decline to take cognizance of a complaint for offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and Section 420 IPC solely on the ground that the complainant is not the registered owner of the trade mark, as there is no statutory provision prescribing such eligibility. Anyone, including a dealer or constituted attorney with a subsisting interest, may file such a complaint unless an explicit bar exists.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Magistrate dated February 20, 1980 dismissing the complaint and refusing to issue process is set aside.
  • Order of the High Court dated November 4, 1980 dismissing revision in limine is set aside.