TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (1) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owner of the Registered Trade Mark "Camel" for safety matches. The said trade mark has been registered as early as in 1954 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The registration of trade mark in the safety matches is under Clause 34 and Clause 13 is for colour matches. The abovesaid registered trade mark has been periodically renewed and the same is valid upto 13-4-1994. The above said Trust was created by his father while he was alive. The registered trade mark is also one of the properties of the trust. His father died on 27-12-1982 and as per the Trust Deed, he is the Managing Trustee and as such, he has to look after the interests of the Trust. The trust gave permission to certain match manufacturing units to use the abovesaid registered trademark by getting certain amount as royalty. The permission to use the trade mark and payment of royalty to the Trust was based on certain agreement between the trust and such third party who is willing to pay royalty for the use of the trade mark. Such permission was given to the concerned Central Excise authorities in the prescribed form for approval under Rule 71(3) of the Central Excise Rules, for clearing the matches under the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. The South Indian Lucifer Match Works was leased by the said P. Ayya Nadar Charitable Trust to M/s. The Rajapalayam Industrial and Commercial Sindicate Limited, Sivakasi by a registered lease deed dated 1-4-1983. The Rajapalayam Industrial and Commercial Syndicate Limited, Sivakasi is having lot of match factories and consent letters were given to all the units under its fold to use the label in question, by M/s. South Indian Lucifer Match Works, Sivakasi and the label were approved by the concerned Range Officers on the strength of the above mentioned consent letters. Before the date of expiry (i.e., 31-3-1988) of registered lease deed dated 1-4-1983, a fresh registered lease deed dated 27-1-1988 was executed by the Trust in favour of the Rajapalayam Industrial and Commercial Syndicate Ltd., for leasing out of South Indian Lucifer Match Works and for using "Camel" brand label wherein the petitioner has not signed even though he was the Managing Trustee of the Trust as claimed by him. The claim of the petitioner being the Managing Trustee of the said Trust itself is disputed by other Trustees and the civil litigation is still pending in then Sub Court, Srivilliputhur. The payment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nasmuch as the writ petition involves considerable disputed question of facts, which can be determined only by detailed evidence let in by all the relevant parties and cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction; accordingly they prayed for dismissal of all the writ petitions. 6.In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr. R. Thiagaraja, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in all the writ petitions, Mr. Vivekanandamoorthy, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent. 7.Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel would contend that after withdrawal of the consent of the petitioner in favour of the third respondent, respondents 1 and 2, the statutory authorities ought to have exercised their powers and stopped giving clearance to the safety matches manufactured by the third respondent. Since the respondents have failed to exercise their powers conferred on them, the petitioner is entitled to seek necessary direction from this Court. On the other hand, Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third respondent, after taking me through the lease deed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s Trade lable, they continued to clear the matches in order to help the third respondent. All the above factual details have been furnished by the petitioner in Paras 4, 5 and 7 of the affidavit. However, the contesting third respondent has stoutly denied the claim of the petitioner. It is the definite case of the third respondent that the petitioner, namely, A. Grahadurai is not entitled to represent the Trust in view of the objection raised by the other Trustees and they also filed suit in O.S. No. 227 of 88 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur for removal of A. Grahadurai, petitioner herein from the office of the Trustees of P. Ayya Nadar Charitable Trust. In the very same suit, they prayed for accounts from A. Grahadurai and his brother A. Vairaprakasam. They also prayed for injunction restraining both of them from interfering with the possession and administration of the Trust properties in any manner. The details regarding civil litigation have been mentioned in paragraphs 3, 6, 13, 14 and 19 of the counter affidavit filed by third respondent. Likewise respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit highlighted that the South Indian Lucifer Match Works was leased by P. Ayya N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner cannot be granted in these writ petitions. No doubt, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner after pointing out Rule 71(3) of the Central Excise Rules, Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act and the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Gujarat v. Shantilal (AIR 1969 Supreme Court 634), contended that the power given under the statute to the respondents 1 and 2 is to do a certain thing in a certain way, and they must do it in that way only. After going through the above mentioned provisions and the decision of the Apex Court, I am of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the above said proposition. The very claim of the petitioner, namely, Managing trustee of P. Ayya Nadar Charitable Trust is in dispute and civil suit is pending before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur at the instance of the other trustees. In such circumstance, in the absence of any order or decree with regard to the claim and status of the petitioner, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. He also relied on the following passage in a decision reported in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhanadas [AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court ....