9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 2. Maintainability of the suit in the absence of statutory notice. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain and try the suit. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Requirement of Statutory Notice Under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 The court examined whether it was obligatory for the plaintiff to give statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Section 164 stipulates that no suit shall be instituted against a society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the society until the expiration of two months after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar. The plaintiff argued that the subject matter of the suit, which involved the infringement of the "Black Knight" trademark, did not touch the business of the defendant society. However, the court found that the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling alcoholic beverages, including whisky, which was within the scope of its bye-laws. Consequently, the court concluded that the statutory notice under Section 164 was indeed required. Issue 2: Maintainability of the Suit in the Absence of Statutory Notice Given that the statutory notice under Section 164 was mandatory, the court addressed whether the suit was maintainable in its absence. The plaintiff contended that the infringement action was in the nature of tort and did not require such notice. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 164 applies to all suits touching the business of the society, whether based on contractual liability or tort. Consequently, the failure to serve the statutory notice rendered the suit not maintainable. The court upheld the findings of the learned Single Judge that the suit was liable to be dismissed due to the absence of statutory notice. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the High Court to Entertain and Try the Suit The court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, given that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 50,000 or less. Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, mandates that suits for infringement of a registered trademark must be filed in a court not inferior to a District Court. The term "District Court" was interpreted in light of Section 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. The court concluded that for the purposes of Section 105, the High Court, exercising its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, qualifies as a District Court. Therefore, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit irrespective of its pecuniary valuation. Conclusion: The court affirmed the findings of the learned Single Judge on all preliminary issues. The plaintiff's failure to serve the statutory notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act rendered the suit not maintainable, leading to its dismissal. Additionally, the High Court was found to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, irrespective of the suit's pecuniary valuation. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit was consequently dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
|
