Application for temporary injunction

2024 CLD 1409 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 19Partnership Act (IX of 1932), S.4Matter of use of trade mark before Intellectual Property TribunalApplication for temporary injunctionParties being siblings /(previous) partnersOne of the partners restrained from using trademark till disposal of the suitLegality

Petitioner assailed order passed by the Intellectual Property Tribunal ('the Tribunal'), whereby an application for grant of temporary injunction brought by respondents (two in number) was accepted ; and petitioner was restrained from the use of the trademark till disposal of the suit by holding that the trade mark belonged to the partnership

Validity

Issue-in-hand related to the rights under the business by the specific name and style ('Riaz & Sons') which was admittedly established by the father of the petitioner and two respondents

Undisputedly, both the parties had applied for registration of trademark in their own name which applications were pending

Both the parties claimed the exclusive use of the trademark

Existence of partnership arrangement established about seventeen years ago was also an undisputed fact which clearly showed that both the petitioner and respondents were partners in the firm

Thus, the issue between the parties related to the use of specific trademark ('Riaz & Sons') and also the respective obligations arising out of the partnership agreement

It had been held in the impugned order that the trade mark belonged to the partnership firm and not to the individual partners and that the partnership firm had not been dissolved and the assets of their father to the extent of 78% of the shareholding was to be distributed in accordance with the Partnership Act, 1932

Having held so, the Tribunal was wrong in granting injunction to one of partners i.e. respondents and restraining the petitioner from the use of the trademark till disposal of the suit

This would give a free hand to respondents to use the trademark to the exclusion of the petitioner which was iniquitous and did not fulfill the requirements of law

Clearly, the dispute had to be determined regarding use of the trademark and also the right of one of the parties to its use upon registration of the trademark, which applications were still pending

In the meantime, none of the parties could be restrained from the use of trademark to the exclusion of the other

Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in accepting the application of respondents

High Court set-aside the impugned order restraining the petitioner from the use of the trademark till disposal of the suit

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 CLC 133 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2Application for temporary injunctionIngredients

Injunction was a preventive remedy for the purpose of preserving the status quo of the matter of suit pending its determination

Status with regard to title or possession of immovable property as existed on the date of filing of suit was to be maintained if status quo was granted by the Court

Court for issuance or refusal of interim injunction had to examine whether a good prima facie case was made out in favour of plaintiff

If plaintiff succeeded to establish a good prima facie case then other ingredients i.e. irreparable loss and balance of convenience would be looked into

Court had to make only a tentative assessment of plaintiff's case for enabling itself to examine whether prerequisites for grant of injunction existed in favour of plaintiff or not

Court might examine the pleadings, affidavits, counter affidavits, rejoinder if any and other documents while dilating upon the merits of case for grant of temporary injunction

Transmission line of defendant was already in existence and same was passing through suit property before entering of plaintiff into lease agreement

New transmission line had been proposed on the same route as it existed presently

Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction

Balance of convenience was also not in favour of plaintiff and there appeared to be no question of irreparable loss to the plaintiff if alleged work of laying transmission line was carried out

Plaintiff was not entitled for discretionary relief of temporary injunction in circumstances

Application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed accordingly.

2015 GBLR 249 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42, 54 & 56(d)Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.2 & 3Suit for declaration and perpetual injunctionApplication for temporary injunction

Contentions of the plaintiff were that it had constructed a class-D stand after getting licence from competent authority and carrying its business of transport since then; that authorities were causing hindrances and preventing the plaintiff from the use of the stand for its vehicles; that authorities had directed the plaintiff to shift its business to the Bus Stand constructed by the authorities outside the Municipal limits of the city

Plaintiff, filed application under O.XXXIX, Rr.2 & 3, C.P.C., for grant of temporary injunction against the authorities restraining them from dislodging the plaintiff from the Stand in question

Trial Court initially granted ad interim injunction against the authorities, but later on vacated the same

Appellate court below and Chief Court, refused to grant temporary injunction

Validity

Authorities had not prevented the plaintiff from carrying on the business of transport, as to run a business was a Fundamental Right of a citizen, but at the same time, administrative authorities were to avoid administrative problems creative of the business

Authorities faced traffic problems with the passage of time

Authorities had asked the plaintiff to shift its business to Bus Stand constructed outside the Municipal limits to control the traffic flow into the city

Plaintiff, had failed to establish balance of convenience, which was required for grant of temporary injunction

Application for grant of injunction was rightly refused under S.56(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Courts below, in circumstances, had applied their judicial mind in refusing the remedy

Concurrent findings, need not to be interfered

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Appellate Court.