In the matters of:-
INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV …..Petitioner
Versus
QUESS CORP LIMITED …..Respondent
With
M/S QUESS CORP LTD …..Petitioner
Versus
M/S INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV …..Respondent
Date of Order:- 19.10.2023
Two cross petitions were filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 challenging order dated 3rd July, 2023 passed by the ld. Additional District Judge (ADJ)-02, South Saket Courts Complex, Saket, New Delhi.
The petitions came from the suit TM No. 58/2016 titled Ikea Trading v. M/s Quess Corp.
Defendant, Quess Corp. Limited filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC which was partially allowed and certain documents filed by the Defendant were taken on record,
Plaintiff challenged allowing of some of the documents to be taken on record, Defendant challenged disallowing it from bringing its annual reports from FY 2007-08 to FY 2013-14 on record.
The Plaintiff claimed rights in the mark ‘IKEA’. The suit in question was filed before the Ld. Additional District Judge(ADJ) seeking permanent injunction in respect of use of the mark ‘IKYA’ by the Defendant.
Ex-parte Injunciton granted and vacated
An ex-parte injunction was granted on 11th January, 2013 by the Ld. Additional District Judge(ADJ) which was, thereafter, vacated vide order dated 3rd August, 2015.
Matter heard by Delhi High Court and injunction restored
The matter was re-heard upon being remanded by Delhi High Court in FAO No. 377/2015, and vide order dated 6th January, 2016 the vacation of the interim injunction was again confirmed.
Time Limit to complete Evidence
The order dated 6th January, 2016 was again challenged before Delhi High Court in FAO No.157/2016 in which a time schedule was fixed by High Court vide order dated 8th August, 2017.
Local Commissioner appointed for recording of evidence
Vide the dated 06.01.2016; the Hon’ble High Court also appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of the evidence. Issues were to be framed in four weeks and parties were directed not to take more than three opportunities to complete their evidence in affirmative. The final hearing was also directed to be completed within three months after recording of evidence.
Story of the Evidence conducted
a) The Issues were framed on 30.10.2017,
b)The Plaintiff’s first witness tendered evidence and was cross-examined on two occasions,
c) More than 125 questions were put to the said witness in cross examination.
d) The said witness, thereafter, left the employment of the Plaintiff which resulted in the witness being replaced with an overseas witness of the Plaintiff.
e) The said overseas witness travelled to India thrice for recording of evidence on seven separate days. It was noticed by the Court that more than 250 questions have been put to the witness. The evidence of the overseas witness was finally closed on 20th October, 2022.
Thereafter, the Defendant was to file its evidence, however, at that stage an application was moved by the Defendant seeking to place on record a large number of documents running into 2,300 pages.
It is this application which has been disposed of vide the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2023.
After hearing the parties and perusing the record. Court said, The procedural delays which have transpired in the present suit are exactly the issues that the Commercial Courts, Act 2015 seeks to address. (a) Unending filing of documents, (b) a large number of witnesses being produced, (c) cross-examination over several hearings, (d) unnecessary inconvenience being caused to witnesses especially coming from outstation or overseas etc., has become a malaise. These are the attempts that ought to be avoided by parties especially in commercial suits.
Unfortunately, the present case was not governed by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as it was filed in 2012 and was being heard before the Ld. ADJ, who is not notified as a Commercial Court. Thus, the unamended CPC was applicable in the dispute.
Supreme Court Judgment quoted by High Court
The general position of law in non-commercial suits is that the Defendant has to file the documents that it seeks to rely upon along with the written statement. For any belated filing, leave of the Court is required before the document is taken on record. The Supreme Court in Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar has held that leave can be granted on good cause for non-production of documents being shown by the Plaintiff.
Directions relating to the case by Delhi High Court
The following directions were issued by Court for expedited disposal of the suit:-
i) List of documents filed by Defendant was taken on record.
ii) Out of 14 witness in the list of documents, Defendant was permitted to lead the evidence of President Workforce Management of the Defendant Company and Company Secretary. In addition, one Chartered Accountant was permitted to be deposed by the Defendant in order to prove the sales turnover figures, profit and loss figures and the list of clientele.
iii) For press clippings and documents relating to Registrar of Trademarks and Registrar of Companies, the same documents were to be exhibited with the consent of parties.
iv) Ld. ADJ to appoint a Local Commissioner for recording of the Defendant’s evidence which will be concluded by end of February, 2024. The matter shall then will proceed for final arguments.
v) Any attempt by either party to unnecessarily delay shall be dealt with by Ld. ADJ in strict terms and shall be stringently penalised with costs.
Petitions disposed off and the matter to be listed before Ld. ADJ.
General Directions for Commercial Courts cases
There were two issues that attracted the attention of the Hon’ble Court.
1) The first issue is denial of public documents such as trademark registrations, records from the office of Registrar of Companies such as incorporation certificate, MoA and AoA of the Company and similar such public records. Such denial, necessitates summoning of officials and production of certified copies or other records. It is usual to note in such matters that parties tend to deny all documents belonging to the other party. In the opinion of the Court neither party should be allowed to make unreasonable blanket denials of documents which are publicly accessible such as trademark registration, records relating to Registrar of Companies, etc. There can be no doubt that if there is any ground as to genuinity or authenticity of the documents, the same can be denied. But en masse denial of such documents ought not to be permitted.
Second issue addressed by Hon’ble Court was of outstation/ overseas witnesses
2) Court said, whenever there are outstation witnesses and overseas witnesses, the District Courts ought to ensure that such witnesses are not repeatedly called before the Court for cross-examination. Especially, in the case of commercial suits, the Commercial Courts would be fully empowered to pass directions restricting the time limit for the cross-examination in order to ensure that unreasonable inconvenience is not cause to such witnesses who may be required to travel repeatedly.
Video Conferencing for cross examination allowed by High Court in Commercial Dispute/Trademark cases
Court observed, In the case of overseas/outstation witnesses if for any reason witnesses cannot travel and the reason is found to be genuine and bona fide, recordal of cross-examination, after following the prescribed procedure can also be permitted through video conferencing. This would ensure that cross-examination of witnesses is not conducted in a never ending manner and such witnesses are not inconvenienced, especially, if they are to travel from foreign countries.
Court directed that the present order should be circulated to all District Judges, Commercial court judges and in district courts, by the ld. Registrar General of Delhi High Court.
Read, Reviewed & Edited by