Delay and laches many-a-times lay the foundation for contending appeals. While the Indian law allows an appeal to be filed purely on legal grounds, devoid of facts and evidence, delay often is the only ground that is raised in deciding matters in an appeal. The recent case of Orchid Hardware (P) Ltd. v. Kich Marketing Pvt. Ltd:& Anr. [2008 (37)PTC 266 (Del)] is one such case in the point.
Kich Marketing Pvt. Ltd., globally reputed manufacturers of knobs, fittings, accessories, bathroom accessories, trade in the name KICH. They aver that they got their design registered, and alleged Orchid Hardware of having copied nine such designs. They stated that the same was done with the aim to mislead the public and they even utilized the code numbers, so as to enable passing off their goods as that of Kich. On this basis, an ex parte injunction order had been granted earlier. Restraining Orchid from selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in the products, the order also prevented them from dealing in all products with Kich' registered designs. They had appealed against this order, which was consequently dismissed.
Orchid submitted that the earlier non-hearing of his application had caused him substantial miscarriage of justice. The precedent of Venkatasubbah Naidu v. Chellappan & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3032 was also cited, whereby it was held, that apart from vacating, modifying or granting an injunction, the Court may consider action against an erring judicial officer. The counsel for Kich refuted that Orchid itself was to be blamed for the lapses and delay it had entailed. They stated that the submission of a bulky set of documents requiring verification, only a day before the hearing had entailed the delay. In response to this, the counsel for Orchid stated that the very nature of the matter required collection of evidence and that the same process had taken time.
The Court found that Kich could not have been blamed for the delay in the matter, and stated that while Orchid was collecting all the documents it wanted to present, neither the Court nor Kich could be blamed. The appeal was dismissed ordering Orchid to pay costs to the Court.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
