LexDABUR INDIA LTD. versus K.R. INDUSTRIES
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 9 S.C.R. 652 A DABUR INDIA LTD. II. K.R. INDUSTRIES (Civil Appeal No. 3637 of 2008) B MAY 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) Copyright Act, 1951 - ss.55, 62(1) - Trade Marks Act, 1947 - Two suits having different cause of action - Maintain- C ability of- Held: Not maintainable - Composite suit of infringe- ment of copyright and passing off would thus not lie in the same forum - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.2 r.3. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is whether the High Court was right in D holding that the composite suit of infringement of copy- right and passing off would not lie in the same forum and that the relief for passing off is covered by decision of Supreme Court in *Dhodha House Case. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Sub-section(1) of s.55 af Copyright Act, 1957 provides for the remedies in terms whereof the plain- tiff shall be entitled to all reliefs by way of injunction, dam- ages, accounts and otherwise as are or may be conferred F by law for the infringement of a rig9't. It must be read as 'ejusdem generis'. It must take its colour from the words, 'any proceeding' namely the right to obtain a decree by way of injunction, decree for damages, accounts. or other incidental reliefs which can be granted by a civil court. G Such a provision can be found in the Code of Civil Proce- dure also, namely Order VI Rule 7 thereof. It is, therefore, correct to read the word "as are or may be conferred by law' to mean, any other law, violation whereof although would give rise to separate and distinct cause of action. H 652 II I ~ .... , - • y DABUR INDIA LTD. v. K.R. INDUSTRIES 653 Under the Code, claims. arising under a statutes govern- A ing substantive procedural law, a number of remedies may be combined. The Court may grant an order of injunction even in a passing off action. It is trite that where the court has the jurisdiction/power to adjudiccite, it will necessar- ily have the incidental power therefor. It may, however, be B different if the Court may have exercised a power which is not provided for as a supplemental proceeding. Thus, whereas an incidental power is inherent in the court, a supplemental ·power may also be exercised, keeping in view the ultimate relief which· may be granted by it. [Paras c 23, 24] [666-8-G] 1.2. If a person is found to be guilty of violation of copyright he will be boun.d to pay damages. For the pur- pose of quantification of damages, taking of the accounts may be necessary and it is in this behalf the Parliament D thought it fit to use the word "otherwise". Thus the power conferred by law within the meaning of sub-section(1) of Section 55 of 1957 Act qualifies the power of the court to grant remedies as envisaged thereunder if any other • cause of action arose under a different Act. An action for E passing off is common law right but the same does not determine the jurisdiction of the court. For exercising such jurisdiction, the provisions· of the Code would be appli· cable. 1957 Act being a special law would, thus, prevail over the general law, viz., the Code. [Para 25] [667-A,B,C] F Exphar Sa & Anr. v. Eupharfna Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.(2004) 3 SCC 688 - held inapplicable. State of Punjab and Anr. v. Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. and Anr. (2004) 11 sec 26 - relied on. 2. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Parliament having inserted sub-section(2) in section 62 of the 1957 Act, the jurisdiction of the Court thereunder would be wider than the one under Section 20 of the Code. G If the impediment is sought to be removed by inserting H 654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R. A an incidental.provision, there cannot be any doubt the court could be entitled to pass an interim order, but the same ~ cannot be extended to a cause of action which is founded on separate set facts as also rights and liabilities of a party under a different Act. [Paras 27, 28] [668-A,B,D] B 3. A composite suit would not entitle a court to enter- tain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territo- rial or otherwise. Order II Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same ... should be ignored.A plaintiff may seek a remedy which c can otherwise be granted by the court. It was that aspect of the matter which had not been considered in *Dhoda House but it never meant that two suits
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.