IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos. 669 & 670 OF 2024 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 669 OF 2024 Appeal under Order 43 Rule r r/w Section 104 of C.P.C Order dated 09.08.2024 in I.A, No, S7 of 2024 in O.S. No. 11 of 2024 on the file of the XII AddI District Judge Court, Vijayawada. Between: against the 1. Moode Sudharani, W/o. Moode Rambabu, Aged Major, Occ proprietor of M/s. Aqua Globe Innovations, Located at # 18-110, Bombay Colony/ Patancheru, Ramachahdrapdfam, Hyderabad, Sangareddy, Telangana -502032, Ph 9291207999. 2. Modde Rambabu, S/o. Suryanarayana, aged about 31 years, R/o. 1-105/5, Gundepudi, Agnikula Kshtriya palem, Allavaram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - S33217 ...Appellants/Defendants : 'i : : AND 1. Mrs Sunitha Vennam, W/o. Ghanta Siva Sitaram, Aged about Occ Proprietor of M/s Blue Bell Solutions, located at 48-18-2, Charan Square, Ground Floor beside Credal Building, Road No.7, 0pp. to NTR Health University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 48 years. 520008, Represented by GPA Holder Mr. Ghanta Siva Sitaram S/o. Ghanta Amareswara Rao, aged about 49 years, R/o. Flat No.511, Yalamachili Heights, Rd.No.8, Nagarjuna Nagar, 0pp. to NTR Health University, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520008 ...Respondent/Plaintiff \A NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151. CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation and effect of the Order dated 09.08.2024 in I.A. No. 67 of 2024 in O.S. No. 11 of 2024 on the file of he Hon’ble XII Addl. District Judge Court, Vijayawada. CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 670 OF 2024 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 r/w Section 104 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2024 in I.A. No. 68 of 2024 in O.S. No. 11 of 2024 on the file of the Honble XII Addl. District Judge Court, Vijayawada. Between: 1. Moode Sudharani, W/o.Moode Rambabu, Aged Major, Occ Proprietor of M/s. Aqua Globe Innovations, Located at 18-110 Bombay Colony/ Patancheru Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad, Sangareddy Telangana - 502032, Ph 9291207999. , 2. Modde Rambabu, S/o.Suryanarayana, aged about 31 years, R/o.1- 105/5, Gunde pudi, Agnikula Kshtriya palem, Allavaram, East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh - 533217. ...Appellants/Defendants AND 1. Mrs Sunitha Vennam, W/o. Ghanta Siva Sitaram, Occ Proprietor of M/s Blue Bell Solutions, located Square, Ground Floor beside Credal Building, Road No.7, 0pp. to NTR Aged about 48 years at 48-18-2, Charan Health University, Nagarjuna Nagar, Vijayawada,Andhra Pradesh- 520008, Represented by GPA Holder Mr. Ghanta Siva Sitaram Ghanta Siva Sitaram,S/o. Ghanta Amareswara Rao, aged about 49 years,R/o. Flat No.511, Yalamachili Heights, Rd.No.8, Nagarjuna Nagar, 0pp. to NTR Health University, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520008.' ...Respondent/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend operation and effect of the order dated 09.08.2024 in I.A.No.68 of 2024 in O.S.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble XII Addl.District Judge Court, Vijayawada. Counsel for the Appellant in both the appeals : Sri Yeshwanth Karanki representing Smt Marupilii Sarada Counsel for the Respondent in both the appeals: Sri Dasari Anil representing Smt Sridevi Jampani The Court made the following ■ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NOs.669 & 670 OF 2024 COMMON JUDGMENT: These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the Common Order and decree dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned XII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada in I.A.Nos.67 and 68 of 2024 in O.S.No.ll of 2024 filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellants/defendants, their partners, their employ agents and servants, from doing business business with plaintiff customers, dealers and distributor well from carrying ees, diverting or as anyone, claiming through them from using brand names Pro-Globe, Globe-NB, Globe Min, Globe on Min-L, While Shield, White Shield L, Sludge Out, which deceptively similar to plaintiff marks or by using any other Mark which is in anyway similar to the plaintiffs trademark. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Trial Court. The case of the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the Trial Court in brief is as follows: The plaintiff is proprietor of M/s.Blue Bell Solutions, which is engaged in the business of aqua are 2. 3. 1. ■N 2 feed supplements and has its registered office at 48- 18-2, Charan Square, Ground Floor, Beside Credal Building, Road No.7, Opposite to NTR Health University, Vijayawada. It is pioneer in the aqua feed industry and have regular dealings with several farmers, industrialists, wholesalers, dealers, individual customers etc. and acquired distinct reputations for its good quality products in the said industry. Plaintiff maintain records of its customer information in hard copies as well soft copies, access of the same is limited to only the core management and relevant employees, including 2nd defendant, who was working as Area Technical Manager. The plaintiff trained the 2nd defendant to the efficient, handed over the entire works of firm to the 2nd defendant, he used to take care of the 11. maximum entire sales and business administration. iii. During early months of 2023, some complaints received from few distributors about non receipt of goods and when enquired, found that one employee U.V.Ganesh working under the supervision of 2nd V 3 defendant had manipulated the stock worth few lakhs of rupees and the plaintiff also found the 2^^ defendant involved in such malpractices. Then the 2'^'^ defendant resigned his job on 09.07.2023 by citing personal reasons. Then the plaintiff came to know that the 2^^ defendant established a firm by name M/s.Aqua Globe Innovations in the name of his wife i.e., 1®^ defendant. He made bad propaganda against the plaintiffs firm before resignation and caused damage. He stole Trade secrets of plaintiffs firm such as their data of all of various products and started manufacturing the same products to that of plaintiffs firm under deceptively similar brands with lables having same content as that of plaintiffs firm and started selling the same to the distributors. The malicious action of the 2"^ defendant before are a clear evidence that it is an offence under various laws including the Trademarks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957. 2nd defendant had with intent to deceive, adopted similar names to encash on the goodwill and reputation of plaintiffs firm. If the defendants are IV. formulations V, \ 4 allowed to manufacture products violating or infringing rights of plaintiff, plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hence, these petitions seeking temporary injunction. The defendant Nos.l and 2 filed counters denied the 4. case of the plaintiffs and pleaded that: Earlier the plaintiff and these defendants worked 1. in Geokhem Company from June 2017 to June 2019 and thereafter in the month of June 2019, plaintiff and 2nd defendant resigned their respective positions. Subsequently, plaintiff started M/s.Blue Bell Solutions in the name of his wife, he acted as C.E.O and 2nd defendant shown as Area Technical Manager in plaintiffs firm. One U.V.Ganesh was employed by plaintiff as 11. their representative about the products of the plaintiff to their customers, hence, U.V.Ganesh is only answerable and responsible to the plaintiff, not by this defendant. Except sales, these defendants are not any way related to the transactions happened and held in between the said U.V.Ganesh and the plaintiff. \ 5 Moreover, the plaintiff already initiated arbitration proceedings against the said U.V.Ganesh and succeeded. The 2"^ defendant resigned to his services on 09.07.2023 citing personal reasons and he informed the same to the plaintiff by e-mail correspondence and it is also true that the defendants established a new business concern in the name and style of “Aqua Globe Innovations”, for which, 1*^ defendant is the proprietrix and nothing wrong therein. There is no law for time being in force restricting anybody from doing or establishing any lawful business and accordingly the defendants established their own business concern. The alleged copy right infringement of violation is 111. only a creation by the plaintiff, since the names. designs, colours and products of the plaintiff business concernand the defendant’sbusinessconcern are quite different and distinguished from each other. There is no resemblance or similarity between the products of the plaintiff concern and the defendant’s concern. The defendants never tried to imitate or copy any name. product, design, or composition of the plaintiff business. There are so many companies and business 6 concerns that have been marketing, and selling their producing, manufacturing, products under trade names. Likewise, the defendants various also doing are their business. In fact, the plaintiff business has imitated and concern copied their products from company with evil the Geokhem motive and malaifde against the nothing but slinging mud against IS not the author intention leveling wild allegations defendants, which iIS the defendants. The plaintiff i or inventor of any of the product of their such the plaintiff cannot goods and as question anybody who has been doing their business independently. There is no wrong in naming the products by nothing to do with the and wherein, the violation or defendants. The defendants are mode of business of the plaintiff defendants have no role to play. The products of the plaintiff and the IV. defendants quite different, distinct, and dissimilar other. Likewise, the content brochures are to each on the labels and are also not at all similar. Thereby, never violated Trademarks Act, Copyright Act, copied. or imitated. any laws of or any of the Acts for 7 time being in force and they never committed any kind of offence as alleged by the plaintiff. The allegations leveled by the plaintiff against the defendants are entirely baseless with an ulterior motive to harass them, to cause loss and damage to their business. The plaintiff is not entitled to restrain the defendants from doing their business, because the industry is not exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no cause of action and no prima-facie case and hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. During enquiry before the Trial Court, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on either side. 6. On merits, the Trial Court had allowed the said petitions by granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their men from doing business or diverting business with plaintiff customers, dealers, distributors mentioned in petition schedule and from using the brand names or by using any other Mark, which is in anyway similar to the plaintiffs trademark. 7. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants before the Trial Court filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 8 8. Heard both sides. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that it got registration of their products under Government of India Trademark Registry on 24.09.2020 which was valid upto 24.09.2030 for its products, they are enclosed to the plaint document No. 12 for comparison. Plaintiff also filed brochure of products of plaintiff as document No.6 and also brochure products of defendants as document No.7. Document No.8 is letter issued by the employee U.V. Ganesh, who committed malpractice in plaintiffs firm under the supervision of 2^^ defendant. Document No.9 is comparison of plaintiff products with defendant’s products. Document No. 10 is appointment letter of 2nd defendant and document No. 11 is resignation letter of 2nd defendant. Plaintiff firm was also registered under GST, and document No.l filed to prove the same. Document No. 13 is list of customers/dealers of plaintiff By considering the above documentary evidence, the Trial Court gave categorical finding that “the products manufactured by the defendant without having Trademark or patent or copyright, almost all similar to the products manufactured by plaintiff and the names of the products manufactured by the defendants, is all deceptive 9. as 10. any V 9 nature, thereby, confusing the common man, therefore, this is definitely amount to violation of Trademark, for which. plaintiff obtained registration and defendant has been unauthorizedly using the Trademark obtained by plaintiff by suffixing or prefixing some letters in deceptive manner. thereby, it will definitely cause damage to the plaintiff firm. Without Trademark registration, defendants are not entitled to produce similar produces in the market.” Consequently, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff. 11. But the above-mentioned documents are not available with this Court and they were not marked as exhibits by the Trial Court. The Rule 70 of the Civil Rules of Practice says that the enquiry into an interlocutory application shall be conducted by receiving affidavits, but if the learned Judge concerned directs that the evidence be given orally, then it shall be recorded and the exhibits be marked in the same manner as in the case of suits. 12. Now, it is relevant to refer the categorical observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in A.P.Mineral 10 Development Corporation Limited v. M/s.Trimex Minerals Pvt.Ltd^, that: “Before closing the case, we must point out that there was considerable difficulty for knowing which documents were filed before the trial Court. This could have been avoided if exhibit numbers with 'P' 85 'R' series are assigned to the documents filed and their brief description is indicated in index. This practice was being followed by the trial Courts until the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in G. Sambrajyam v. P. Maha Lakshmamma and others, 1995 (1) ALD 358, wherein his Lordship observed that neither the Civil Rules of Practice (framed by the High Court) nor the provisions of CPC contemplate marking of documents in an interlocutory application. May be, the rules are silent; but, "it does not mean that marking of documents for the convenience of the parties and the Court, is prohibited or barred. In our view, there need not be express conferment of power in this behalf. The Court has inherent or incidental power to modulate the procedure not specifically laid down by the rules in an appropriate manner to promote general convenience and to facilitate easy reference. To avoid any confusion, the documents tentatively marked at the lA stage can us in 19^8(1) ALT 182 (D.B.) 11 be renumbered at the stage of trial of suit with 'A' 86 'B' series, as is being done now, if they are proved or admitted in evidence. It is true that IAs cannot be enquired into a suits. But, it is far from saying that the documents referred to in the course of arguments or filed with the pleadings ought not to be indicated with appropriate serial numbers at the end of the order. Respectfully disagreeing with the view taken by the learned Judge, we hold that it is desirable to restore the old practice and procedure.” (emphasis supplied) In the present case on hand, as stated supra, the Trial 13. Court did not exhibit any of the documents, which are material, available on record to appreciate the case in an effective manner by this Court. 14. Furthermore, it is also relevant to refer the observations of Division Bench of this Court in T.Bhopal Reddy v. K.R. Lakshmi Bai?, which are as follows: “16. As stated earlier, we are quite conscious of the fact that the documents marked for purpose of determination of any interlocutory application cannot be treated as evidence per se but would enable the Court to prima facie come to a conclusion about the merits or demerits of the 2 1998(1:|ALD 770 (DB) 12 contentions advanced. For the reasons aforesaid, we disapprove the view taken by Mr.Justice Somasekhara in the case referred to supra insofar as marking of the documents in the interlocutory applications. Further, in order to avoid any future difficulties, it is desirable to incorporate a rule in Civil Rules of Practice for giving a separate marking to the documents relied upon by either party in interlocutory proceedings by directing the trial Courts to mark such of the documents relied 17. upon by the petitioners in the interlocutory applications as ‘P’ series and the documents relied upon by the respondents as ‘R’ series to avoid any difficulty in identifying the documents at a later stage of the proceedings and also during trial. (emphasis supplied) More so, it is very much relevant to refer the categorical 15. observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in R.PariJatham v. M.Kameshwaii? that: 7. In the light of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the orders under appeals are set aside. The Court below is directed to mark the documents filed by both the parties, hear both sides after such marking and dispose of 3 2017(5) ALD 348 (DB) ■W 13 O.S.No.301 of I.A.Nos.801 and 957 of 2016 in 2016 afresh, as expeditiously as possible, and not than three months from the date of receipt of later of this order. Till disposal of the I.As., today shall be a copy status quo subsisting as on maintained. feel the necessity 8. Before closing these cases, of observing that instances have been coming to we the notice of this Court, where some Subordinate have not been marking the documents Courts while disposing of the interlocutory applications. reminded of a Division In this context, we are Bench judgment of this Court in T.Bhoopal Reddy K.R.Laxmi Bai [1998(1) ALT 292 (D.B.)], wherein it was observed that in order to come to a facie conclusion, both the trial Court and vs. prima the Appellate Court should necessarily be able to the documents and know its contents to with either of the contentions; that nowhere of the contesting locate agree it is envisaged that the case the affidavits and parties can only be decided other material and that in the absence on not on any of any specific rule documents concerned, the Courts would not be justified in marking at all to such of the which both sides would rely. far as marking of so stage IS the interlocutory at not giving any documents on Regrettably, pronouncement authoritative this despite of the Division Bench, some 14 Courts have been ignoring the same and not marking the documents. The case on hand reflects one such instance. We, therefore, direct the High Court on administrative side to issue a Circular directing the Subordinate Courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the interlocutory applications before deciding such applications. 16. Having regarding to the above discussion and in view of the categorical observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in plethora of pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter can be remanded to the Trial Court to mark the material documents produced by the parties and then appreciate the matter afresh under Order 41 Rule 23A of C.P.C. and the Trial Court shall dispose of the said interlocutory applications within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment as envisaged under Order 39 Rule 3(3A) of C.P.C. and submit the compliance before this Court. Till disposal of the said applications, status quo subsisting as on today shall be maintained. 17. With the above observations, theses Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.669 and 670 of 2024 are disposed of by setting aside the common order dated 09.08.2024 in I.A.Nos.67 and 15 68 of 2024 in O.S.No.ll of 2024 on the file of the Court of learned XII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Trial Court to appreciate the same afresh by marking the material documents produced by the parties, the Trial Court shall dispose of the said interlocutory applications within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment as envisaged under Order 39 Rule 3(3A) of C.P.C. and submit the compliance before this Court. Till disposal of the said LAs., status quo subsisting as on today shall be maintained. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the Trial Court for disposal of the said applications within the period prescribed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. SDI- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 2. The XII Additional District Judge Court, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. One CC to Smt. Marupilli Sarada Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Smt Sridevi Jampani Advocate [OPUC] 5. THREE CD Copies stu HIGH COURT DATED:25/03/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.Nos.669 & 670 of 2024 i 1S MAY 20715 S ^ . Current becuon ."y £^patcH5B< DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS appeals