9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 1068 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking to transfer the case to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Patiala House Court New Delhi - Use of the trade mark SACHAMOTI in respect of sago or sabudana by Rajkumar Sabu (the petitioner) - Respondents claim proprietary right over the said trade mark - alleged offences under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 103 of the Trade Marks Act 1999 - HELD THAT - The suits being heard by the Delhi High Court would have points which could overlap with those involved in the criminal case pending in the Salem Court. But that very fact by itself would not justify transfer of the said case. Substantial progress has been made in the said complaint before the Salem Court. So far as the subject-criminal case is concerned the ground of overlapping points in any event cannot justify the petitioner s case for transfer as even if the petition is allowed the criminal case shall have to proceed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and not in the High Court where the civil suits are being heard. Two different judicial fora would be hearing the civil cases and the criminal case. Whether the civil cases and the criminal case would continue together or not is not a question which falls for determination in this Transfer Petition. Moreover it does not appear that earlier any complaint was made about the proceeding being carried on at Salem. In fact the petitioner had applied for quashing the complaint before the Madras High Court but at that point of time no proceeding was taken out for transferring the criminal complaint. The petitioner does not appear to have had expressed their grievances on the basis of which this petition has been filed at that point of time. Barring claims being made by the petitioner of the respondents being influential person in Salem no material has been produced to demonstrate that such perceived influence can impair a neutral trial. These allegations inter-alia appear in an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner affirmed on 26th February 2021. The claims of the petitioner do not match the level of unjust influence exerted on the defence in the case of JAYENDRA SARASWATHY SWAMIGAL TAMIL NADU VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 2005 (10) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT on the basis of which the transfer petition was allowed. In that case this Court found the prosecuting authorities were harassing the defence team of lawyers and there were materials demonstrated by the petitioner to show that the State machinery was going out of its way in preventing the accused from defending himself. The petitioner s case of possible tainted trial is unfounded and does not meet the standard laid down in the cases of GURUCHARAN DAS CHADHA VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1965 (11) TMI 157 - SUPREME COURT and UMESH KUMAR SHARMA VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. 2020 (10) TMI 1367 - SUPREME COURT - It cannot be concluded that justice would be in peril if the case continues in the Salem Court. It is not satisfying that on the basis of materials available that the petitioner would not get impartial trial in the Salem Court. Problem of language faced by the petitioner - HELD THAT - The respondents seem to be carrying on their business from Salem. In course of hearing before me no question has been raised as regards territorial jurisdiction of the Salem Court in proceeding with the case the transfer of which is asked for. Now complaint is being made that the petitioner not being able to understand Tamil language the case ought to be transferred to a Court in Delhi. Language was a factor considered by this Court in the case of Sri Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal while selecting the Court to which the case was to be transferred. But language was not the criteria based on which transfer of the case was directed - The language factor weighed with this Court while deciding the forum to which the case was to be transferred after decision was taken to transfer the case for certain other reasons. The petitioner s plea for transfer is based primarily on convenience. But convenience of one of the parties cannot be a ground for allowing his application. Transfer of a criminal case under Section 406 of the 1973 Code can be directed when such transfer would be expedient for the ends of justice . This expression entails factors beyond mere convenience of the parties or one of them in conducting a case before a Court having jurisdiction to hear the case. The parties are related and are essentially fighting commercial litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions. While instituting civil suits both the parties had chosen fora some of which were away from their primary places of business or the main places of business of the defendants - The ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of MRUDUL M. DAMLE AND ORS. VERSUS C.B.I. NEW DELHI. 2012 (5) TMI 865 - SUPREME COURT cannot apply in the factual context of this case. In that case a proceeding pending in the Court of Special Judge CBI Cases Rohini Courts New Delhi was directed to be transferred to the Special Judge CBI cases Court of Session Thane. Out of 92 witnesses enlisted in the charge sheet 88 were from different parts of Maharashtra. That was a case which this Court found was not Delhi-centric . The accused persons were based in western part of this Country. It was because of these reasons the case was directed to be transferred. The present transfer petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Transfer of the criminal case from Salem Court to Patiala House Court, New Delhi. 2. Allegations of illegal and unauthorized use of the trade mark SACHAMOTI. 3. Family dispute over the ownership of the trade mark. 4. Language barrier and convenience of the petitioner. 5. Alleged influence of respondents in Salem affecting impartial trial. Detailed Analysis: 1. Transfer of the Criminal Case: The petitioner sought to transfer the criminal case from the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Salem (Salem Court) to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner argued that the criminal case involved similar points as the civil suits being heard by the Delhi High Court and that the proceedings in Salem were conducted in Tamil, which the petitioner did not understand. Additionally, the petitioner cited the inconvenience of traveling over 2000 kilometers from Indore to Salem and alleged that the respondents had undue influence in Salem, raising concerns about an impartial trial. 2. Allegations of Unauthorized Use of Trade Mark: The respondents, Sabu Trade Private Limited, filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging unauthorized use of the trade mark SACHAMOTI in respect of sago or sabudana. The Judicial Magistrate, Salem, took cognizance of the alleged offenses under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and issued summons to the petitioner. The complaint was instituted on 22nd May 2017, and the case was registered as CC No. 82/2018 on 5th April 2018. 3. Family Dispute Over Trade Mark Ownership: The case had elements of a family dispute, with the petitioner, intervenor, and Gopal Sabu (representing the respondents) being brothers. Multiple litigations over the ownership of the trade mark SACHAMOTI were ongoing in various courts, including the High Court of Delhi, District Court of Salem, District Court of Indore, and High Court at Calcutta. Previous transfer petitions had resulted in the consolidation of some suits in the Delhi High Court. 4. Language Barrier and Convenience: The petitioner argued that the proceedings in Tamil at the Salem Court posed a significant barrier, and it would be more convenient to conduct the proceedings in New Delhi where the civil suits were being heard. However, the court noted that the availability of translators and interpreters in the Salem Court could mitigate the language issue. The court emphasized that convenience alone could not justify the transfer of a case under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 5. Alleged Influence in Salem: The petitioner claimed that the respondents had undue influence in Salem, which could affect the impartiality of the trial. However, the court found no credible material to support this allegation. The court highlighted that substantial progress had been made in the Salem Court, with the examination-in-chief of three prosecution witnesses already completed. The court also noted the delay in filing the transfer petition and the lack of earlier complaints about the proceedings in Salem. Conclusion: The court dismissed the transfer petition, stating that substantial progress had been made in the Salem Court and that there was no credible material to support the petitioner's claims of undue influence or lack of impartiality. The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be sparingly used and that mere inconvenience or apprehension of one party could not justify the transfer of a case. The court also noted that the availability of translators and interpreters could address the language barrier issue. The petitioner's plea for transfer was primarily based on convenience, which was deemed insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 406 of the Code.
|
