Scribd
Upload
207 views2 pages

Intiyaz Sheikh Vs Puma Se CM (M) 225/2021 & CM No. 10177/2021

This document summarizes a court case between Intiyaz Sheikh and Puma SE regarding trademark infringement. The court dismissed Intiyaz Sheikh's petition challenging the dismissal of his application to condone the delay in filing a written statement in the case. The court observed that Intiyaz Sheikh did not demonstrate sufficient cause or extraordinary circumstances to condone the delay. The court also noted a prior Supreme Court ruling that commercial court provisions must be strictly construed to ensure the objective of speedy dispute resolution. Therefore, the court dismissed Intiyaz Sheikh's petition and upheld the original order.

Uploaded by

Tanu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
207 views2 pages

Intiyaz Sheikh Vs Puma Se CM (M) 225/2021 & CM No. 10177/2021

This document summarizes a court case between Intiyaz Sheikh and Puma SE regarding trademark infringement. The court dismissed Intiyaz Sheikh's petition challenging the dismissal of his application to condone the delay in filing a written statement in the case. The court observed that Intiyaz Sheikh did not demonstrate sufficient cause or extraordinary circumstances to condone the delay. The court also noted a prior Supreme Court ruling that commercial court provisions must be strictly construed to ensure the objective of speedy dispute resolution. Therefore, the court dismissed Intiyaz Sheikh's petition and upheld the original order.

Uploaded by

Tanu
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

INTIYAZ SHEIKH vs PUMA SE

CM(M) 225/2021 & CM No. 10177/2021

Introduction

The judgement was passed in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on dated 12 October 2021 by
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL.

The present petition was filed impugning the order dated 29th January, 2021 of the District Judge
(Commercial), South East, Saket, New Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 323/2019, of dismissal of the
application of the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(CPC) for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The said application was dismissed
vide the impugned order, on the ground that the Commercial Courts, under the law have no power
to extend the period of 120 days for filing the written statement

Background

The suit from which the present petition arises was filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the
District Judge (Commercial Court), seeking permanent injunction to restrain the
petitioner/defendant from selling goods under the mark ‘PUMA’ and logo and other ancillary
reliefs. Vide order dated 15th February, 2019, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim
injunction in the suit, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and also appointed a Local Commissioner
to, inter alia inspect the premises of the petitioner/defendant and take into custody all infringing
goods at the said premises.

Arguments Raised

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment dated 28th August, 2019 passed by a Single
Bench of this Court in CS(COMM) 1092/2018 titled Redbull India AG Vs. Pepsico India Holdings
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., wherein the written statement of the defendant therein, filed within the outer limit
prescribed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits, was taken on
record despite the fact that no application for condonation of delay had been filed.

Counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner is a habitual infringer and has placed
reliance on an ex parte decree dated 27th August, 2021 passed against the respondent in
CS(COMM) 2090/2019 titled Guccio Gucci S.P.A. Vs. Intiyaz Sheikh. He also seeks to distinguish
the judgment in Red Bull on the ground that in the said judgment, the court was not seized of the
issue of whether the written statement can be taken on record if it is filed belatedly and without any
application for condonation of delay, whereas in Friends Motel Pvt. Ltd. this was directly an issue
before the court.

Observation

Court observed that it has rightly been contended by the counsel for the respondent that in Red Bull
cited by the petitioner, no finding has been given by the court on whether a written statement filed
belatedly can be taken on record in the absence of an application for condonation of delay. In the
present case, the petitioner has neither made out sufficient cause nor demonstrated any
extraordinary circumstances in support of condoning the delay.
Directions

The Supreme Court, in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC
585 has observed that the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 have to be strictly
construed and if the provisions are given liberal interpretation, the object behind the enactment, of
speedy disposal, will be defeated.

In light of the above, no ground is made out for interference of this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. The pending
application is also disposed of.

REKHANSH RANA
BBALLB(HONS.), IX SEM
INDORE INSTITUTE OF LAW

You might also like