Summary
In a trademark suit, the Single Judge briefly postponed consideration of interim relief to permit affidavits and required weekly sales accounts. The Division Bench entertained an appeal and granted an injunction pending suit. The Supreme Court held that the procedural order lacked the finality necessary for a judgment under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It also rejected the appellate court’s substitution of its own original assessment, restored the earlier arrangement and directed prompt determination of the injunction application without prejudging the trademark dispute.
Issues
- Whether a short postponement of interim-relief consideration was an appealable judgment under Clause 15.
- Whether the Division Bench could decide the injunction application in the first instance by substituting its assessment.
- What interim arrangement, further hearing and costs were appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Clause 15, Letters Patent of the High Court at CalcuttaOn these facts the order merely allowed affidavits and briefly postponed interim-relief consideration; lacking the requisite finality and adjudication of valuable rights, it was not an appealable judgment. (¶ 16-26)
Held
- The broader Letters Patent meaning of judgment does not encompass every interlocutory order. The inquiry is contextual: the order must possess the necessary finality and directly affect vital and valuable rights, rather than merely cause procedural inconvenience or remote prejudice. (¶¶ 16-21, 26)
- The Single Judge had not conclusively granted or refused the injunction. The short adjournment allowed a response, expressly left the merits open and protected the plaintiff through weekly accounts. The intra-court appeal was therefore not maintainable in these circumstances. (¶ 23-26)
- An appellate court reviewing discretionary interim relief must identify an arbitrary, capricious or perverse exercise, or disregard of governing legal principles. It cannot simply replace a reasonably possible view with its own or assume the trial court’s role in first deciding the application. (¶ 28-35)
- The Division Bench failed to explain why the Single Judge’s approach justified interference and did not properly address prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury before granting the injunction. (¶ 31-36)
- The appellate injunction was set aside, the Single Judge’s earlier order continued pending further orders, and determination of the injunction application was requested within six weeks. No observations were to prejudice that determination. The plaintiff was directed to pay five lakh rupees to the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society. (¶ 37-40)
Result
Appeal allowed. The Division Bench judgment was set aside; the Single Judge’s order of 2 April 2019 continued pending further orders. The injunction application was to be decided within six weeks without influence from prior observations, and the plaintiff was directed to pay costs of five lakh rupees to the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society.