Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) DEFECT waived. Both the petitions involve a common question of maintainability of writ petitions having been filed by the petitioners defendants (hereinafter 'the defendants') against the order dt. 28.10.2008 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4, New Delhi (hereinafter 'the trial court') on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC at the instance of the respondent plaintiff No. 3 (hereinafter 'the plaintiff). Consequently they are being decided by a common order. The facts of SBCW P. No. 12962/2014 are being taken as the lead case.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed by the defendants against the order dt. 28.10.2014 passed by the trial Court whereby it on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed in a suit for passing off laid by the plaintiff passed the impugned ex -parte ad -interim order. Thereby the trial Court restrained the defendants its employees, associates, agents, distributors, stockists, franchisees and representative and others from manufacturing, marketing using, selling, soliciting, displaying, exporting or by any other mode or means any identical deceptively and confusingly similar trade mark/trade dress SSTXON10000 and 2 KA POWER with respect to steel bar (saria) and other allied/cognate goods manufactured or marketed by the plaintiff company, till further order effective the visit of the Local Commissioner to the premises of the defendants. The trial Court also directed on an application made under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC by the plaintiff seizure of infringing articles. Other ex -parte incidental directions were also issued by the trial Court. The Commissioner was also directed to sign the account books including ledgers, cash register, stock register, invoices, books etc. of the defendants and prepare an inventory of all such goods/material seized by him where -after the said goods/material were handed over to the defendants on superdari after taking photographs of the seized material. Mr. U.N. Bhandari -Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. Sameer Jain for the defendants has submitted that the impugned order is wholly without jurisdiction, a gross misuse of the judicial process, violative of the principles of natural justice infringing on the fundamental rights of the defendants' company to carry on its trade/business and therefore liable to be set aside. It has been submitted that in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India the defendant company, doing business within the jurisdiction of this Court has been injured by the impugned order and hence cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court has arisen. Therefore, this writ petition ought to be entertained, notices issued to the plaintiff and an interim order passed in favour of the defendants to protect them from the invidious effects of the impugned order. It has been submitted that the provision of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against the order dt. 28.10.2014 passed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC is of no obstruction to the exercise of the extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court, which ought to be exercised in view of the fact that consequent to the ex -parte ad -interim order dt. 28.10.2014 the defendants' factory employing over 100 persons has been effectively rendered nonfunctional. This is working gross injustice upon the defendants and hundreds of employees.
(3.) RELIANCE has been placed on several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court delineating the expansive powers of the writ Courts in intervening in situation of gross injustice and misuse the jurisdiction particularly when occasioning unwarranted and unconscionable injury. It has been submitted that the facts of the present petition would require the defendants' protection against the ex -parte ad -interim order dt. 28.10.2014 at the hand of this Court in the exercise of its extra -ordinary equitable jurisdiction.;