IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOs.55338-342/2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN:
1. INDUS STEEL & ALLOY LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.163/B, 2ND FLOOR, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 004 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. S.S. SRIKANTH 2. INDUS TMT INDUSTRIES LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.164/1 5TH FLOOR, SAKAMMA GARDEN KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU-560 004 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. R. SEKHAR 3. MR. S.R. SATHANANTHAM S/O LATE RAJAGOPAL SETTY AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS REP. BY HIS SON & GPA HOLDER MR. S.S. SRIKANTH R/AT OLD NO.12, NEW NO.23 GOVINDAPPANAICKEN STREET CHENNAI-600 001.
4. MR. S.S. SRIKANTH S/O MR. S. R. SATHANANTHAM DIRECTOR OF INDUS STEEL & ALLOY LTD,.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT OLD NO.12, NEW NO.23 GOVINDAPPANAICKEN STREET CHENNAI-600 001.
5. MR. VISHWESHWARA ADIGA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.112, RLF RESIDENCY BANGALORE-560 076.
...PETITIONERS (BY SMT. CHITRA SAMPATH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI H.S. RUKKOJI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR. D. VENKATESH GUPTA S/O REDDAPPASETTY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT NO.461, GROUND FLOOR 21ST CROSS, NEW DIAGONAL ROAD 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 011.
2. THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ‘E’ WING, 2ND FLOOR KENDRIYA SADAN KORMANGALA BANGALORE-560 034.
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER IDBI BANK LTD., INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY BLDG. 1, RED CROSS, P.B.NO.231 NEW DELHI- 110 001.
...RESPONDENTS THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-K PASSED IN O.S.NO.6669/2017 BY THE 27TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-09).
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Smt.Chithra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Rukkoji Rao H.S. for petitioner. Perused the records.
2. Defendants 3 to 7 are assailing the order dated 27.11.2017 passed in O.S.No.6669/2017 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-9). The prime contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner in this petition is, though dispute relates to order transferring the suit O.S.No.6669/2017 from CCH-9 to CCH-10 on the premise that issue involved in the suit relates to trademark and it has to be adjudicated by the designated court, she would hasten to add that since matter has now been transferred to CCH-10 (designated court) she would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the said jurisdictional Court, which is now adjudicating the case to dispose of the suit expeditiously at any rate within a timeframe on the ground that plaintiff on one pretext or the other is attempting to protract the proceedings after having obtained exparte temporary injunction.
3. This Court has not issued notice to first respondent. However, it is needless to observe that Rule 3-A of Order XXXIX CPC mandates that where an order of temporary injunction has been granted without giving notice to opposite party such Court should make endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which temporary injunction came to be granted and where it is unable to do so, it is mandatory on the part of such Court to record reasons for such delay. In the instant case, an exparte order of temporary injunction came to be granted on 03.07.2017 and thereafter matter has been adjourned from time to time and temporary injunction granted on 03.07.2017 has also been extended from time to time. However, on 27.11.2017 though none of the parties and their respective learned counsel raised objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court, City Civil Court (CCH 9) to hear the said matter suo-moto Presiding Officer of CCH- 9 has recorded a finding that issue involved in the suit relates to trademark and it is required to be tried by the designated Court namely, CCH-10 and has accordingly ordered for same being posted to said Court. Now the matter has been heard by the transferee Court in part. Hence, transferee Court shall keep in mind Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC and Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 and dispose of the interlocutory application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the plaintiff expeditiously within the timeframe as indicated in CPC.
Ordered accordingly. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the jurisdictional court.
Sd/- JUDGE DR