Asked District Court To Expedite Trial In Suit Filed By Hero Cycle Against Hero Ecotech In A 2014 Trademark Infringement: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court in the case Hero Cycle Limited And Anr Vs. Hero Ecotech Limited And Ors observed wherein the plea was moved by Punjab-based Hero Cycle Limited’s against the decision of the Patna High Court in its decision to recall its order of debarring the defendants from filing written statement in a 2014 trademark infringement suit, thus, the court dismissed the plea.
The bench headed by Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra in the case observed and has noted that the Supreme Court had requested the trial court to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible, while restoring injunction granted in favour of Hero Cycle in 2016.
The court in the case observed and has requested the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial and complete the same as early as possible without giving unnecessary adjournment and both the parties in the case are directed to cooperate the trial Court for the early disposal of the title suit.
In the present case, the suit is filed by the Hero Cycle in the year 2014, wherein seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the infringement of its registered trademark ‘HERO’ in relation to bicycles and bicycle parts. Hero Ecotech Limited, its Director Vijay Munjal and Kumar Cycle Store, who being the defendants in the present suit which is pending before the Patna High Court.
The trail court in the case observed and has debarred the Hero Ecotech and its Director from filing the written statement due to the delay but later the court recalled its order based on an application filed by the defendants as stated under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1970. Therefore, the written statement was permitted to be accepted by the court subject to cost of Rs 5,000. It has been argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the recall order contradicted the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also contended before the court that the respondents’ written statement was not filed within the statutory period, and no application for condonation of delay was submitted before the court.
Further, it has been submitted by the counsel appearing that the said court failed to provide a valid reason in order to accept the written statement after the stipulated time, and thus, the court set aside the impugned order.
It has also been submitted by the Senior counsel representing the respondent before the court that the defendants had filed their written statement within the time prescribed by the Trial Court. Thus, it has been argued by them that the plaintiffs did not object to the order granting an extension, which subsequently attained finality. Adding to it, it has been contended by them that the plaintiffs cannot raise the said issue in a different stage of the same proceeding, citing the principle of res judicata applicable in different stages of the same proceeding.
The bench of Justice Mishra stated that there being no illegality or substantive procedural irregularity for interference by the court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Accordingly, the court dismissed the plea.
The counsel, Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate with Mr. Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate, Mr. Karan Verma, Advocate, Mr. Shreyash Goyal, Advocate, Mr. Abhay Nath, Advocate, Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate, Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate, Ms. Sweta Raj, Advocate, Ms. Shatakshi Sahay, Advocate appeared for the petitioners.
The counsel, Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Shanker Tiwari, Advocate represented the respondents.