A Delhi court quotes from the Bhagavad Gita
A Delhi court quotes from the Bhagavad Gita
Shows the door to litigation without following the trial
A Delhi court allowed the application for summary judgment, but dismissed the claim of TTK Prestige on a trademark infringement case against Hiveloop Technology.
(The case pertained to TTK, known for manufacturing kitchen appliances. It had dragged an online retail platform Hiveloop to court for selling its products without consent).
While dealing with the case, the court quoted a couple of poems and a verse from the Bhagavad Gita, the holy book of the Hindus.
TTK had informed the district judge (Commercial Court), Man Mohan Sharma, that it got into an agreement with its dealers and distributors as per which the sale of any of its products through online or e-commerce mode was not allowed without its prior written consent. It alleged that the defendant was selling the products without its consent, resulting in a trademark infringement.
The court said it was inclined to decide the issue without ordering for a trial. It is our duty to show an exit door to litigation without following the entire ritual of trial if the same could be done within the four corners of the law to curtail "dockets explosion", it observed.
The court found resonance in a poem by American writer and poet Shel Silverstein, explaining that the precious time of the courts could be utilized fruitfully by focusing on the areas of actual dispute.
Quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, the court explained, "The logic for an action must be known, so also the logic for inaction and that the logic for a prohibited action must also be known, therefore the practice of 'karma' is profound."
It added, "Various rights and obligations defined in various agreements between the plaintiff and the distributors/dealers were enforceable between the parties to the agreement inter-se only and could not bind any third person or the world at large."
The judgment further noted that the plaintiff had no real prospect of succeeding on the claim of inducement of breach of contract. Thus, there was no compelling reason for the claim to proceed to trial.
