2001 (8) TMI 1390 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of the process of the Court.
2. Bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Abuse of the Process of the Court:
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' institution of multiple suits on the same subject matter amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. They contended that the plaintiffs were aware of the alleged infringement and the existence of the moulds when they filed the Delhi suit but chose not to include all possible claims in that suit. The court emphasized that the principle of preventing multiplicity of litigation is a fundamental aspect of judicial policy. The court noted that the plaintiffs had filed successive suits in different jurisdictions, which could lead to contradictory decisions and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' conduct indicated an intention to indulge in multiple litigations to secure interim reliefs, which amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit due to the abuse of the process of the court.

2. Bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The defendants also argued that the present suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, which mandates that a plaintiff must include the whole of the claim arising from the same cause of action in one suit. The court examined the Delhi suit and found that the plaintiffs were aware of the moulds and the alleged infringement when they filed the Delhi suit. The court noted that the reliefs claimed in the present suit could have been included in the Delhi suit, as they arose from the same cause of action. The court further observed that the plaintiffs' failure to include these claims in the Delhi suit barred them from instituting the present suit under Order II, Rule 2. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were obligated to raise all available grounds in the Delhi suit to prevent further litigation on the same subject matter. Therefore, the present suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the suit, holding that the institution of the present suit amounted to an abuse of the process of the court and was barred under Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court emphasized the importance of preventing multiple litigations on the same subject matter and the need for plaintiffs to include all available grounds in their initial suit. The court clarified that this order would not prevent the plaintiffs from seeking permission to amend the Delhi suit to include the grounds raised in the present suit. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the suit to the defendants.