w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Devi Food Products v/s A-One Products


Company & Directors' Information:- H-ONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U73200UP1997PTC023702

Company & Directors' Information:- B. P. FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311MP1994PTC032994

Company & Directors' Information:- S P P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412DL2004PTC128666

Company & Directors' Information:- J S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15314OR1991PTC002964

Company & Directors' Information:- H R B FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15146WB1988PTC045281

Company & Directors' Information:- V D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15400DL2012PTC231717

Company & Directors' Information:- P R FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC030483

Company & Directors' Information:- S S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15310MH2003PTC142530

Company & Directors' Information:- B K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15312OR1996PTC004541

Company & Directors' Information:- O H P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52205DL1999PTC100269

Company & Directors' Information:- K V FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15122DL2007PTC162739

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15431JK1982PTC000554

Company & Directors' Information:- K I C FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15316DL1979PTC009757

Company & Directors' Information:- R B FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15313DL2010PTC202753

Company & Directors' Information:- R K B FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490KL2013PTC033500

Company & Directors' Information:- S K G FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15419UP1991PTC013771

Company & Directors' Information:- B H FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15134DL1997PTC084273

Company & Directors' Information:- N S FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1992PTC055591

Company & Directors' Information:- H N FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15146UP1990PTC011540

Company & Directors' Information:- V K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15412UP1988PTC010023

Company & Directors' Information:- A-ONE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29200MH1998PTC114164

Company & Directors' Information:- B M FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15419WB1993PTC060386

Company & Directors' Information:- I K FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15412WB1991PTC051852

Company & Directors' Information:- S S V FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15499AP1982PTC003547

Company & Directors' Information:- S Q P FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15100MH2003PTC139217

Company & Directors' Information:- F S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15311MH2000PTC126031

Company & Directors' Information:- Z K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400MH2010PTC209818

Company & Directors' Information:- M B S FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01112WB2003PTC096375

Company & Directors' Information:- N D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15131DL2002PTC115754

Company & Directors' Information:- C K M FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1998PTC012358

Company & Directors' Information:- DEVI FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01134OR1990PTC002450

Company & Directors' Information:- G S C FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15316WB1985PTC038398

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Under Liquidation] CIN = U15412WB1990PTC049789

Company & Directors' Information:- J M D FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15419DL1998PTC097578

Company & Directors' Information:- L K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15200TG2016PTC103411

Company & Directors' Information:- A-ONE FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1982PTC028445

Company & Directors' Information:- FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15431JK1966PTC000304

Company & Directors' Information:- R R FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490PN2015PTC154753

Company & Directors' Information:- A N FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400TG2013PTC091969

Company & Directors' Information:- R V S K FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15490DL2012PTC245851

Company & Directors' Information:- X-ONE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999KA2017PTC104445

Company & Directors' Information:- K G Y FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15400KA1984PTC005909

Company & Directors' Information:- FOOD PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U15311HR1994PTC032356

Company & Directors' Information:- M K FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U15209DL1979PTC009924

    S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 14 of 2010

    Decided On, 19 August 2010

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN

    For the Appellant: Anuroop Singhi, Advocate. For the Respondent: G.D. Bansal Advocate.



Judgment Text

R.S. Chauhan, J:

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 26-10-2009, passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C., the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner under sections 134 & 135 of Trade Mark Act and under Section 62 of the Copyright Act. The petitioner filed written statement and controverted the averments made in the suit by the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC for raising certain objections regarding the maintainability of the suit. The respondent did not file reply to the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC. However, vide order dated 26.10.2009, the learned Judge dismissed the application without going into the objections raised in the application under order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Hence, this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, the 1earned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the petitioner had raised three contentions before the learned Judge, namely that although the suit was filed on behalf of M/s A-One Products through its proprietor Shri Ramesh Chand Vijayvergia, however, there was no document to prove the fact that Mr. Vijayvergia was, indeed, the proprietor of the firm, secondly, the cause of action did not arise in Jaipur as the petitioner-company is functioning in Telegupalayam, Tamil Nadu and does not sell any of its products in Jaipur. Therefore, the court in Jaipur do not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Thirdly, although the plaintiff claims that the petitioner company has caused the Plaintiff a loss of Rs. 20 lacs, yet the valuation of the suit has not been done properly. Therefore, the proper court fees has not been paid. According to the learned counsel, despite the fact that these three contentions were raised before the learned Judge, the learned Judge has not discussed any of the contentions and has passed a non-speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

4. On the other hand, Mr. G.D, Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondents, has vehemently contended that the order has been passed legally and validly.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that although the learned Judge had twice noticed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order, she has failed to discuss and has failed to give any judicial finding on any of the three contentions which were raised before her. The learned Judge has merely, quoted a part of Section 134 of the Trademark Act without drawing any conclusion from the said quotation. It is, indeed, surprising that the order has been passed in such highly cryptic manner.

7. Considering the fact that an order passed under order 7 Rule 11 CPC is revisable before this court, the least that is expected from a learned Judge is that he/she would pass a speaking order. It is imperative for this Court to know the reasoning of the Judge for having dismissed, or for having allowed an application. In the absence of the reasoning, both the litigant and this Court are left groping in the dark. A non-speaking order not only diminishes the faith of the people in the judiciary, but also increases the docket flooding the higher courts. Therefore, it is essential for the Judge to completely reveal his mind for the assessment of the higher courts.

8. Recently in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785, the Apex court has deprecated the practice of the Judges passing cryptic and non-speaking order. The Apex Court has observed as under:-

Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases. Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty and helps in the observance of law of precedent.

In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof could render the order liable to judicial chastisement. Thus, it will not be far from an absolute principle of law that the courts should record reasons for their conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and in accordance with law. It is the reasoning alone that can enable a higher or an appellate court t appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. TO subserve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is essential that the courts should record reasons for their conclusion, whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.

The Supreme court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied)

The court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting the claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. The requirement of stating reasons for judicial orders necessarily does not mean a very detailed or lengthy order, but there should be some reasoning recorded by the court for declining or granting relief to the petitioner, while dealing with the matter at the admission stage even recording of concise reasons dealing with the merit of the contentions raised before the High Court may suffice, in contrast, a detailed judgment while the matter is being disposed of after final hearing may be more appropriate, but in both events, it is imperative for the High Court to record its own reasoning however short in might be.

When reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that the process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. 9. Unfortunately, the impugned order is Highly cryptic one. Therefore, this court has no other option, but to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26-10-2009. The case is remanded back to the learned Judge with the directions that the learned Judge should consider, examine, discuss and give judicial finding on each of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. With these observations, this petition is, hereby, allowed.
O R