Delhi High Court. Delhi High Court. Hearing a contempt petition about a company trying to get its intellectual property rights (IPR) suits listed before one of three particular judicial officers in Delhi district courts, the Delhi High Court has ordered that such suits not be listed before any of the three officers concerned. The bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice I S Mehta, while issuing the direction during the hearing of a contempt plea by M/s Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd against M/s KRBL Ltd and its officials, said if the IPR suits are “so listed” before any of the three judicial officers, then they should “be assigned to some other courts by the concerned District and Sessions Judge”. In April 2017, M/s KRBL Ltd, owner of India Gate rice, moved court against M/s Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd which owns the Parliament rice brand. The suit was filed for seeking an injunction from using a similar kind of packaging. In the suit, M/s KRBL Ltd filed an application for marking the case before a particular judge. On October 8, in a contempt plea before the High Court, M/s Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd raised concerns over the manner in which matters, particularly IPR suits, were listed before a particular judicial officer in the district courts. The HC issued notice to M/s KRBL Ltd and its officials, and asked them to be personally present in court on October 15. And on October 15, two other firms filed intervention applications in the pending contempt plea, claiming that in their cases too, M/s KRBL Ltd had filed an application along with the suit at Patiala House Courts for marking the case before the judicial officer concerned. The counsel for the intervener alleged that M/s KRBL Ltd was able to obtain an ex-parte injunction order against the two private limited companies, restraining them from using similar packaging. The petition, filed through advocate Rahul Vidhani, also alleged that the applications for marking before particular judicial officers and obtaining favourable orders was a common practice by M/s KRBL Ltd, and various such marking applications had been placed before the court. After hearing the allegations, the bench of Justices Sanghi and Mehta said: “The grievance highlighted in the present contempt petition as well as in the intervention application raises very serious concerns about the manner in which the matters, particularly suits, are listed before a particular Judicial Officer in the District Courts. The petitioner and the intervenors has brought out several instances where the same counsel representing the respondents has moved repeated applications in different suits to have the different suits listed before particular Judicial Officers, namely, Mr Mukesh Kumar, Ms Veena Rani and Mr Chandersekhar. The petitioners claim that favourable orders were obtained by the respondents from the said Judicial Officers to which they were not entitled on merits.” “We may at this stage itself observe that we are not concerned with the merits of those disputes and the aggrieved party have their remedy in law. However, considering the nature of allegations, we, firstly, direct the respondents to disclose in the reply the following details: the number of suits it has filed in respect of its IPR with complete particulars of suit number, the date of its filing, the counsel through whom the same has been filed and the Judicial Officers before whom the matter was listed initially; whether an application for marking and listing before a particular Judicial Officer was moved; the name of the Judicial Officer before whom the matter was sought to be listed; whether the matter was listed before the Judicial Officer as desired by the respondents; Whether any ex-parte orders of injunction were passed; and, the date of the ex-parte ad-interim orders of injunction, if any,” the bench said. “Without casting any aspersion either on the counsel or on the Judicial Officers, with a view to keep the streams of justice clear from any such allegations, we direct that the IPR suits preferred by the respondents be not listed before the aforesaid three Judicial Officers and if so listed, be assigned to some other courts by the concerned District & Sessions Judge,” it said. “We also direct that applications for marking/listing moved henceforth be scrutinised by the District & Sessions Judge, after calling for the judicial records of the suits/proceedings already pending, and fresh suits/ proceedings sought to be instituted and got marked/ listed before a particular Judicial Officer, so as to satisfy himself that the application has been moved justifiably, before the application is allowd,” it said. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 22. For all the latest Delhi News, download Indian Express App

Stay updated with all the Delhi Latest News headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.