1951 (8) TMI 22 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court remands case for fresh review on evidence authenticity and public policy concerns, issues guidelines on costs.

The High Court remanded the case to the Registrar for a fresh review, directing a comprehensive assessment of all evidence on the authenticity of the ... - Issues Involved:1. Authenticity of the Panchnama2. Public Policy Concerns3. Procedural Matters and Evidence4. Maintainability of Cross-Objections5. Costs and AppearancesDetailed Analysis:1. Authenticity of the PanchnamaThe appellant claimed that his father was the proprietor of the trade mark and had given the respondent leave and licence to use the trade mark through a panchnama dated 1937. The respondent challenged the authenticity of this document, alleging forgery. The Registrar initially found the panchnama to be genuine but limited the registration to certain districts. The High Court noted that the respondent was not allowed to present all available evidence on the document's authenticity, which justified the remand for further evidence.2. Public Policy ConcernsThe Registrar held that the panchnama's provisions were against public policy because it allowed the appellant's father to revoke the licence at any time, potentially harming the respondent who had built a market reputation. The High Court directed the Registrar to reconsider whether the panchnama's provisions truly contravened public policy, taking into account legal principles and authorities that were not initially considered.3. Procedural Matters and EvidenceThe High Court discussed the procedural aspects under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that the Registrar has the discretion to decide matters on affidavit or take oral evidence when necessary. The Court criticized the respondent for not addressing the panchnama in his affidavit, noting that it was incumbent upon him to rebut the opponent's evidence. However, the Court agreed that the respondent should have been allowed to present all relevant evidence to challenge the document's authenticity.4. Maintainability of Cross-ObjectionsThe High Court analyzed whether the cross-objections by the appellant were maintainable after his appeal was dismissed by Coyajee J. on the ground of limitation. It was determined that the dismissal on a preliminary ground (such as limitation) did not result in a judicial determination that would merge the Registrar's order into the appellate court's order. Therefore, the appellant's right to cross-object was upheld, as the dismissal did not constitute a decision on the merits.5. Costs and AppearancesThe High Court addressed the issue of costs, noting that the Registrar's appearance in the appeal was unnecessary since the Registrar's role is akin to that of a trial court, which should not intervene in appellate proceedings to defend its judgment. The Court varied the costs order, making the costs of the petition and cross-objections contingent on the final outcome of the application. No costs were awarded for the appeal between the appellant and respondent, and no order for costs was made for the Registrar.ConclusionThe High Court remanded the matter to the Registrar with instructions to reconsider the entire application de novo, allowing all relevant evidence on the authenticity of the panchnama and the ownership and use of the trade mark. The Registrar was also directed to reassess the public policy implications of the panchnama's provisions. The appeal was disposed of with specific directions regarding costs and the unnecessary appearance of the Registrar.