SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. versus SURENDRA OIL & DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 27-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 703 
SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. 
v. 
SURENDRA OIL & DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2005) 
AUGUST 27, 2010 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) 
A' 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 27 -
Additional evidence - Suit for permanent injunction alleging 
that the defendant had infringed upon the plaintiff's registered 
C 
trade. mark - Plaintiff produced before the court photocopies 
of the trade mark registration certificates - Trial court marked 
the said photocopies as 'Exhibits', however, ultimately 
dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff/appellant 
did not file the registration certificates in original - Plaintiff D 
filed appeal alongwith application under Order 41, Rule 27 
CPC for admitting the original registration certificates at the 
appellate stage as additional evidence - Single judge of the 
High Court allowed the application for additional evidence 
and, ·together with it the appeal - Held: The plaintiff had a 
E 
legitimate grievance about the way the trial proceeded - The, 
single judge rightly allowed the plaintiff's plea for production: 
of original certificates as additional evidence as that was id 
the interest of justice and there was sufficient statutory basis 
for that under clause (b) of Order 41, Rule 27 - But the single, 
F 
judge erred in proceeding simultaneously to allow the appeal; 
and not giving the defendants /respondents an opportunity to 
lead evidence in rebuttal of the documents taken in as, 
additional evidence - Matter remitted to single judge t.01 
proceed in the appeal, from the stage the original registration. 
G 
certificates were taken on record as additional evidence, with 
liberty to allow the defendants! respondents to lead rebuttal 
evidence or make a limited remand as provided under Order 
41, Rule 28- Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958- s.31. 
703 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-company, engaged in the manufacture and 
sale of high grade coconut oil and the registered owners 
of the trade mark "Shalimar", filed suit seeking 
permanent injunction against the respondents on the 
ground that the latter had infringed upon the appellant's 
B trade mark. In course of the trial, the appellant submitted 
before the court, photocopies of the registration 
"certificates under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 
1958, which were "marked" by the trial court as Exhibits 
"subject to objection of proof and admissibility". The trial 
c court, however, ultimately dismissed the·suit on the 
ground that the appellant did not file the trade mark 
registration certificates in their original. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the 
High Court and in the appeal, also filed an application 
D under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for accepting the original 
trade mark registration certificates as additional evidence. 
A single judge of the High Court allowed the applicati_on 
for additional evidence and, together with it the appeal, 
thereby setting aside the judgment passed by the trial 
E court. In intra-court appeal, the division bench of the High 
Court hel~ that there was no occasion or justification for 
admitting the original trade mark registration certificates 
at the appellate stage as additional evidence and restored 
F 
the judgment passed by the trial court. 
The appellant contended before the Supreme Court 
that if the trial court was of the view that the photocopies 
of the documents in question were not admissible in 
evidence, it ought to have returned the copies at the time 
G of their submission; in that event, the appellant would 
have substituted them by the original registration 
certificates and that would have been the end of .the 
matter; but once the photocopies submitted by the 
appellant were marked as exhibits, it had no means to 
know that while pronouncing the judgment, the court 
H 
SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. v. SURENDRA 705 
OIL & DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) 
would keep those documents out of consideration, thus, 
A 
causing great prejudice to the appellant. The appellant 
submitted that the procedure followed by the trial court 
was contrary to the procedure prescribed by Order 13, 
Rule 4, CPC, therefore, the single judge of the High Court 
was fully justified in accepting the originals of the 
B 
documents concerned in evidence. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Having regard to the manner, in which the 
proceedings took place before the trial court, the si

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.