HC upholds ex-parte injunction against Surat firm

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently refused to grant relief to a Surat-based firm, which challenged the injunction order against it wherein it was restrained from using the brand name of an online fashion portal

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently refused to grant relief to a Surat-based firm, which challenged the injunction order against it wherein it was restrained from using the brand name of an online fashion portal.

HT Image

The firm had claimed that the injunction order was passed without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

However, after the HC was informed by the portal, Kalki Fashion, which claims to have celebrity clients and huge online presence, that the Surat firm could seek a hearing and get the injunction order changed, the court refused to interfere.

Thereafter, the parties entered into consent terms, wherein the Surat firm agreed to stop using the name of the portal and also agreed to pay damages to the tune of ₹25 lakh after which the suit was disposed of.

The fashion portal had approached the HC, claiming that the Surat firm was guilty of infringement of their intellectual property in material and designs, following which the HC had issued the injunction order.

While the commercial suit by Suarabhakti Goods, which owns the Kalki Fashion brand, came up for hearing before the bench of justice Manish Pitale, the bench was informed that a single judge bench of justice R I Chagla had imposed an interim injunction against the Surat-based firm and restrained it from using the brand name for a limited period of time. However, the firm informed the bench that the order by justice Chagla was passed without hearing it.

The appeal against the injunction was heard by a division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice Gauri Godse, which decided that the ex-parte order could be changed, while the injunction was in force and hence it was not interfering in the same. The bench held that as the court had perceived some loss to the applicant, it was justified in issuing the injunction order provided the other side had a chance to be heard.

Later, after the two firms decided to settle the matter, consent terms were submitted to the bench of justice Pitale, who accepted the same.