Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 34 (DEL)

Yogesh Chawla v. Hawkins Cookers Ltd.

2008-01-14

MANMOHAN SARIN, VEENA BIRBAL

body2008
JUDGMENT : 1. Admit. 2. With the consent of the parties the appeal is taken up for disposal. 3. The Appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order and judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2nd July, 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the application of the Appellant for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC being I.A. No. 4480/2007 in civil suit (OS) No. 2020/2002. The said application has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- Mr. Shailen Bhatia Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that even though the Appellant had earlier relied on Vogel Media International GmbH and Another Vs. Jasu Shah and Others, (2004) 115 DLT 679 , reference to the same is of no consequence now since the suit had been transferred to this Court pursuant to the application moved by the Respondent for enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the suit and the court exercising power u/s 24 of CPC to transfer the same to the High court. Learned Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge had taken an uncharitable view of the matter by holding that the Appellant was adopting dilatory tactics and had delayed the progress of the suit by two years. He thus, refused the amendment to the written statement. 4. Learned Counsel submits that the delay had occurred on account of transfer to the District Court and subsequent enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction and finally the suit being transferred to High Court u/s 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Be that as it may, Learned Counsel submits that the only amendments which are of significance and relevance to the case of Appellant relate to the factum of registration of the Appellant's product under the Designs Act, Copyright Act and registration under the Trademarks Act. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Hemant Singh submits that in fact the Respondent had indicated before the learned Single Judge itself that he had no objection to the Appellant's affidavit which had been filed in relation to the Designs Act being taken into account. He submits that the Respondent has no objection to the Appellant leading evidence before the learned Single Judge with regard to registration under the Copyright Act, Designs Act as also the Trademarks Act and the Respondent would not raise any objection to it. 5. He submits that the Respondent has no objection to the Appellant leading evidence before the learned Single Judge with regard to registration under the Copyright Act, Designs Act as also the Trademarks Act and the Respondent would not raise any objection to it. 5. With a view to put an end to the controversy and with modalities to be followed it is agreed between the parties and so ordered that the Appellant would file an additional affidavit confining it only to the factum of registration being granted under the Copyright Act, Designs Act and the Trademarks Act. The said affidavit would be treated as an additional written statement and the Appellant would be permitted to lead evidence in support thereof. The other amendments which are sought by the Appellant are really unnecessary as they are in terms of improved averments and restructuring of the response. The appeal is accordingly decided in above terms. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that he is not making an issue regarding the costs in view of the above decision and the Learned Counsel for Respondent leaves the same to the discretion of the Appellate Court. Accordingly, let the Appellant pay the sum of Rs. 10,000/- awarded as costs in the following manner : 1. Rs. 5,000/- to Delhi High Court Legal Service committee. 2. Rs. 5,000/- to the Respondent. 7. The affidavit to be treated as additional written statement be filed by Appellant within ten days from today and response thereto may be filed by Respondent within ten days thereafter. 8. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.