1927 (1) TMI 1 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Detention of goods by Customs authorities.
2. Institution and prosecution of suits.
3. Obtaining and enforcing injunctions.
4. Slander of goods.
5. Limitation and damages.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Detention of Goods by Customs Authorities:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant company maliciously applied for and obtained detention orders from the Customs authorities in Bombay and Calcutta, alleging infringement of their trade-mark. The Court found that the defendant company acted in accordance with the Sea Customs Act and the Merchandise Marks Act, and did not misstate facts to the Customs authorities. The plaintiff failed to prove that the statements made were untrue or malicious. Consequently, this claim was barred by limitation under Article 36 of the Limitation Act.

2. Institution and Prosecution of Suits:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant company maliciously instituted suits in the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta. The Court referenced the Quartz Hill case and concluded that mere institution of a suit, even if done maliciously and without probable cause, does not give rise to an action for damages unless it results in specific types of damage. The Court found no evidence of malice or lack of probable cause on the part of the defendant company in instituting the suits, as they had received professional advice that they had a fair case. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim under this head was also barred by limitation.

3. Obtaining and Enforcing Injunctions:
The plaintiff sought damages for an interim injunction obtained by the defendant company, which was later dissolved. The Court held that such an undertaking in damages is to be enforced by an application to the Court that granted the injunction, not through an independent suit. However, given the procedural context, the Court treated the plaintiff's suit as an application for an inquiry into damages caused by the injunction. The Court directed an inquiry to ascertain the damages but excluded losses related to the cancellation of contracts, as the plaintiff's conduct in canceling them was not justified by the injunction.

4. Slander of Goods:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant company slandered his goods by making false and malicious statements about their quality. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to provide specific particulars of the alleged slanders and did not prove that the statements were false or made with malice. The Court noted that a trader is entitled to commend his own goods and state that they are better than a competitor's, provided the statements are not false. The plaintiff's claim for slander of goods was therefore dismissed, and the Court held that it was also barred by limitation under Article 36 of the Limitation Act.

5. Limitation and Damages:
The Court discussed the applicability of various articles of the Limitation Act to the plaintiff's claims. It held that Article 36 applied to the claims related to detention of goods and slander of goods, making them time-barred. For the claim related to the injunction, the Court allowed an inquiry into damages as an application in the original suit, emphasizing that the plaintiff was not guilty of unreasonable delay in bringing the suit.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the appeal, treating the plaintiff's suit as an application for an inquiry into damages caused by the injunction granted on 11th May 1922. The inquiry was directed to exclude losses related to the cancellation of contracts. The plaintiff's other claims were dismissed as time-barred or unsubstantiated. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant company's costs of the appeal and the suit, less a sum assessed as the reasonable costs of an application for an inquiry into damages.