Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1425 (HP)

Union of India v. Ram Kishan

2016-07-19

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. It is stated that the issue involved in all these writ petitions is similar, based on similar facts. Accordingly, we deem it proper to club all these writ petitions and determine the same by this common judgment. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, waives notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. Mr. Varun Rana, learned counsel for the respondents, stated at the Bar that the similar issue was raised before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of writ petitions, which became subject matter of batch of LPAs, LPA No. 406 of 2009, titled as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar versus Darshan Ram, being the lead case, decided on 28th February, 2014, and LPA No. 1363 of 2014, titled as Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices Hoshiarpur Division versus Kishan Chand and others, alongwith other connected matters, decided on 25th August, 2014, which was also followed in LPA No. 1875 of 2014, titled as The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur Division, Hoshiarpur versus Hari Dev and others, decided on 14th November, 2014, and prayed that these writ petitions be decided in terms of the judgments (supra). 4. We have examined the pleadings and gone through the judgments (supra), are of the considered view that the law thrashed out by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgments (supra) is legally correct and we are also of the same view. 5. It is apt to record herein that the Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Neon Laboratories Limited versus Medical Technologies Limited and others, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 672 , has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by other High Courts. It is profitable to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: “7. The primary argument of the Defendant-Appellant is that it had received registration for its trademark ROFOL in Class V on 14.9.2001 relating back to the date of its application viz. 19.10.1992. It contends that the circumstances as on the date of its application are relevant, and on that date, the Plaintiff Respondents were not entities on the market. However, the Defendant-Appellant has conceded that it commenced user of the trademark ROFOL only from 16.10.2004 onwards. 19.10.1992. It contends that the circumstances as on the date of its application are relevant, and on that date, the Plaintiff Respondents were not entities on the market. However, the Defendant-Appellant has conceded that it commenced user of the trademark ROFOL only from 16.10.2004 onwards. Furthermore, it is important to note that litigation was initiated by Plaintiff Respondents, not Defendant Appellant, even though the latter could have raised issue to Plaintiff Respondents using a similar mark to the one for which it had filed an application for registration as early as in 1992. The Defendant Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction. However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants are the same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably erupt since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order. Anarchy would be loosed on the Indian Court system. Since the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more. The Plaintiff Respondents filed an appeal against the Order dated 31.3.2012 and the Division Bench has, by its Order dated 30.4.2012, stayed its operation.” (Emphasis added) 6. At this stage, it is stated that the judgment in LPA No. 1875 of 2014 (supra) was questioned before the Apex Court by the medium of SLP (C) No. 1819 of 2016, titled as The Senior Superintendent of Post officers Hoshiarpur versus Hari Dev, which came to be dismissed on 1st February, 2016. 7. In view of the above, we deem it proper to dispose of all these writ petitions in view of the judgments (supra) made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, shall form part of this judgment also. 8. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications.