Tag: Rejection of Plaint

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency
4Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Landmark Ruling Protects IP Owners: Supreme Court Says Continuous Infringement Creates Inherent Urgency

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, a suit alleging continuing infringement of intellectual property rights inherently contemplates urgent interim relief. The Court held that mere delay in filing the suit does not negate urgency, as each ongoing act of infringement causes immediate and irreparable harm, and public interest in preventing market deception also factors into the assessment. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, a Danish company named Novenco Building and Industry A/S, held patents and design registrations in India for its industrial fans sold under the brand ‘Novenco ZerAx’. It had entered into a dealership agreement with respondent No. 1, Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., in 2017. The appellant later discov...
Read More
Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Proprietor and His Business Are Not Separate Legal Entities

The Supreme Court held that a proprietorship concern is not a juristic person and a suit filed against the proprietor personally is maintainable. Order XXX Rule 10 of the CPC is merely enabling and does not bar a suit against the proprietor, who remains the real party in interest for all transactions conducted in the trade name. Facts Of The Case: The appellants, owners of a property, leased it to Aditya Motors, a sole proprietorship concern of respondent Pilla Durga Prasad, via a registered lease deed. After the lease expired, the lessee failed to vacate, prompting the appellants to file an eviction suit. The original suit named the lessee as defendant no.1 (Aditya Motors), along with the sub-lessee and its directors. During the proceedings, the appellants amended the plaint, substituti...
Read More
Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection

The Supreme Court ruled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a partition suit based on the Benami Act when plaint averments describe properties as joint family assets. Whether properties are benami or fall under exceptions (Section 2(9)(A)) requires evidence. Section 4’s bar applies only to proven benami transactions, not disputed claims requiring trial. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involved a family partition suit (Regular Suit No. 630A/2018) filed by Vidya Devi Gupta (mother) and Sudeep Gupta (younger son) against Sandeep Gupta (elder son), his wife Shaifali Gupta, and their children, along with subsequent property purchasers Deepak Lalchandani and Surya Prakash Mishra. The plaintiffs claimed that multiple properties acquired in individual family members’ names – in...
Read More