Court dismisses Customs Commissioner's impleadment application in trademark suit, not a party; relief unrelated.

The court dismissed the application for impleadment filed by the Commissioner of Customs in a suit concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the Commissioner of Customs was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit, as the relief sought in the suit was solely related to trademark infringement, not customs violations. The court emphasized that the applicant's involvement under the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Rules was contingent on the final adjudication of the suit. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no merit in granting the application for impleadment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for impleadment filed by Commissioner of Customs seeking to be a party in a suit based on infringement of intellectual property rights.
2. Opposition by both plaintiff and defendant regarding the application.
3. Legal principles governing impleadment of parties in a suit.
4. Analysis of whether the Commissioner of Customs is a necessary or proper party in the present suit.

Analysis:
1. The application for impleadment was filed by the Commissioner of Customs based on the alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by the defendant through the import of goods. The applicant claimed that the goods imported were in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. The applicant sought to be impleaded as a party in the suit on this basis.

2. Both the plaintiff and defendant opposed the application for impleadment. The plaintiff argued that the suit was filed solely based on trademark infringement and that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the suit. The plaintiff also highlighted that the applicant cannot proceed under the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Rules during the pendency of the suit.

3. The court referred to legal precedents to determine the criteria for necessary and proper parties in a suit. The court cited judgments such as Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels and Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal to establish the principles governing impleadment of parties. The court emphasized that the presence of a party should be necessary for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.

4. After considering the arguments and legal principles, the court concluded that the Commissioner of Customs was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the present suit. The court highlighted that no relief was sought against the applicant in the plaint, which was solely based on trademark infringement. Additionally, the court noted that the applicant's involvement under the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Rules was subject to the final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for impleadment, stating that there was no merit in the application.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the legal principles applied by the court in reaching its decision regarding the application for impleadment.

---