NDLI: Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1908 – Or.XXXIX Code of Civil Procedure rr.1 and 2 – Temporary Injunction
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.XXXIX, rr.1 and 2 –Temporary Injunction – Both appellants and respondents weremanufacturers and sellers of Thermo-Mechanically treated bars(TMT bars) – Respondent-plaintiff filed civil suit before Single Judgeof High Court claiming infringement of their registered trade mark‘SHYAM’ and its variants and also for passing off by the appellants-defendants – Along with the suit, an application for temporaryinjunction came to be filed – The application claimed an order ofinjunction restraining appellants-defendants from infringingrespondent-plaintiff’s trade mark ‘SHYAM’ – The Single Judge madea prima facie observation that ‘SHYAM’ being a part of the businessname of appellants-defendants, no injunction should be passed torestrain the appellants-defendants from using the said word ‘SHYAM’on their packaging; and directed the matter to be listed after threeweeks – Respondent-plaintiff filed intra-court appeal – DivisionBench of High Court granted injunction restraining the appellantsfrom using the mark ‘SHYAM’ till disposal of the suit – ‘Tenabilityof appeal’ against the order of Single Judge – Correctness of the‘approach of the Division Bench’– Held: Each and every orderpassed by trial judge could not be construed to be “judgment” – Tobe construed as a “judgment”, order must have the traits andtrapping of finality and such order must affect vital and valuablerights of the parties – Though the order of the Single Judge mighthave caused some inconvenience and prejudice to the respondent,the same could not be treated as ‘judgment’ – The order of SingleJudge did not contain traits and trappings of finality – The saidorder cannot be construed to be a ‘judgment’ and the appeal to theDivision Bench was not tenable – Approach of the Division Benchwas totally contrary to the various principles of law – If the appellatecourt itself decides the matters required to be decided by the trialcourt there would be no necessity to have the hierarchy of the courts– Division Bench failed to observe as how the discretion exercisedby the Single Judge was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously orperversely – There was no discussion as to how a prima facie casewas made out by the respondent – Tests of ‘balance of convenience’and ‘irreparable injury’ were not even mentioned – Approach ofDivision Bench of High Court was totally unwarranted and uncalledfor.Appeal – Letters Patent appeal – Term ‘judgment’ used inLetters Patent – Held: Though the term ‘judgment’ used in LettersPatent could not be given a narrower meaning as is given to theterm ‘judgment’ used in CPC and it should receive a much widerand more liberal interpretation, however, at the same time, eachand every order passed by the trial judge could not be construed tobe a ‘judgment’ inasmuch as there will be no end to the number oforders which would be appealable under the Letters Patent – Theword ‘judgment’ has undoubtedly a concept of finality in a broaderand not in a narrower sense – Where an order vitally affects avaluable right of the defendants, it will undoubtedly be treated as a‘judgment’ within the meaning of Letters Patent so as to beappealable to a larger Bench.Injunction – Temporary Injunction – Grant of – Three testsof prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.Judiciary – Hierarchy of courts – Role of appellate court –Held: An appellate court, after the findings of the trial court arerecorded, has an advantage of appreciating the view taken by thetrial judge and examining the correctness or otherwise thereof withinthe limited area available – If the appellate court itself decides thematters required to be decided by the trial court, there would be nonecessity to have the hierarchy of courts.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 303
Petitioner	Shyam Sel And Power Limited And
Respondent	Shyam Steel Industries Limited
SCR	[2022] 3 S.C.R. 1173
Judgement Date	2022-03-14
Case Number	1984

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited

Please Log-in to view this content

Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc. Vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors.

Hukamchand Vs. Bansilal & Ors.

M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Limited Vs. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Ramakrishna Rao (dead) By Lr. Vs. Rai Murari

Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram & Ors.

Tanusree Basu & Ors. Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors.

Gupta Steel Industries Vs. M/s. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup & Ors.

Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited

Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Mandali Ranganna & Ors. Etc. Vs. T. Ramachandra & Ors.

Hukamchand Vs. Bansilal & Ors.

M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Limited Vs. Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. and Ors.

Ramakrishna Rao (dead) By Lr. Vs. Rai Murari

Usha Sinha Vs. Dina Ram & Ors.

Tanusree Basu & Ors. Vs. Ishani Prasad Basu & Ors.

Gupta Steel Industries Vs. M/s. Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup & Ors.

Shyam Sel and Power Limited and Vs. Shyam Steel Industries Limited