SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND versus SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 14-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1173
1173
SHYAM SEL AND POWER LIMITED AND ANOTHER
v.
SHYAM STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 1984 of 2022)
MARCH 14, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 –
Temporary Injunction – Both appellants and respondents were
manufacturers and sellers of Thermo-Mechanically treated bars
(TMT bars) – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit before Single Judge
of High Court claiming infringement of their registered trade mark
‘SHYAM’ and its variants and also for passing off by the appellants-
defendants – Along with the suit, an application for temporary
injunction came to be filed – The application claimed an order of
injunction restraining appellants-defendants from infringing
respondent-plaintiff’s trade mark ‘SHYAM’ – The Single Judge made
a prima facie observation that ‘SHYAM’ being a part of the business
name of appellants-defendants, no injunction should be passed to
restrain the appellants-defendants from using the said word ‘SHYAM’
on their packaging; and directed the matter to be listed after three
weeks – Respondent-plaintiff filed intra-court appeal – Division
Bench of High Court granted injunction restraining the appellants
from using the mark ‘SHYAM’ till disposal of the suit – ‘Tenability
of appeal’ against the order of Single Judge – Correctness of the
‘approach of the Division Bench’– Held: Each and every order
passed by trial judge could not be construed to be “judgment” – To
be construed as a “judgment”, order must have the traits and
trapping of finality and such order must affect vital and valuable
rights of the parties – Though the order of the Single Judge might
have caused some inconvenience and prejudice to the respondent,
the same could not be treated as ‘judgment’ – The order of Single
Judge did not contain traits and trappings of finality – The said
order cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ and the appeal to the
Division Bench was not tenable – Approach of the Division Bench
was totally contrary to the various principles of law – If the appellate
court itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trial
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
court there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of the courts
– Division Bench failed to observe as how the discretion exercised
by the Single Judge was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or
perversely – There was no discussion as to how a prima facie case
was made out by the respondent – Tests of ‘balance of convenience’
and ‘irreparable injury’ were not even mentioned – Approach of
Division Bench of High Court was totally unwarranted and uncalled
for.
Appeal – Letters Patent appeal – Term ‘judgment’ used in
Letters Patent – Held: Though the term ‘judgment’ used in Letters
Patent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to the
term ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much wider
and more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, each
and every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed to
be a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there will be no end to the number of
orders which would be appealable under the Letters Patent – The
word ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broader
and not in a narrower sense – Where an order vitally affects a
valuable right of the defendants, it will undoubtedly be treated as a
‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent so as to be
appealable to a larger Bench.
Injunction – Temporary Injunction – Grant of – Three tests
of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
Judiciary – Hierarchy of courts – Role of appellate court –
Held: An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court are
recorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by the
trial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof within
the limited area available – If the appellate court itself decides the
matters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be no
necessity to have the hierarchy of courts.
Words and Phrases – Term ‘judgment’ – Meaning of.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 Though the term ‘judgment’ used in Letters
Patent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to the
term ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much wider
and more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, each
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
and every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed
to be a judg

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