RAJKUMAR SABU VS M/S. SABU TRADE PRIVATE LTD.[MAY 07, 2021]

CITATION	LL 2021 SC 255
DATE OF JUDGMENT	7th may 2021
COURT	Supreme Court
APPELLANT	Rajkumar Sabu
RESPONDENT	M/S Sabu Trade Private Limited
BENCH	Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Krishna Murari

INTRODUCTION

This lawsuit deals with the conflict related to use & ownership of the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in respect of sago or sabudana. It is a classic example of dispute involving ownership of intellectual property rights. Many proceedings are initiated by both the parties against each other stating infringement & passing off of the said trademark. All the persons involved in the case are brothers who had business relations in the past. The central issue in this case is to decide the validity of transfer petition filed by the petitioner asking for the transfer of case from Salem Court to Delhi Court.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The facts of the case revolve around a transfer petition filed by the petitioner in Supreme Court of India. This proceeding was instituted because the respondent represented by its managing director Gopal Sabu filed a private criminal complaint in Salem Court under sec 420 of Indian Penal Code & sec 103 of the Trademarks Act. They alleged that the petitioner was making illegal & unauthorized use of the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in respect of sago or sabudana. They asserted their proprietary right over the said mark. In response to this complaint the petitioner Rajkumar Sabu filed a transfer petition under sec 406 of CrPC for the transfer of the criminal case filed by the respondent in court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV Salem to the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the transfer plea requesting transfer of the criminal case from Salem District Court, Tamil Nadu to Patiala House District Court, Delhi must be allowed?
2. Whether language can be the only ground for transfer of case from one court to another?
3. Can inconvenience caused to a single party be the sole ground for transfer of case?

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

1. The petitioner is represented by learned senior advocate Mr.S.Guru Krishnakumar. The petitioner wants the case to be transferred to Patiala House Court, New Delhi from Salem Tamil Nadu.
2. The grounds put forth by the petitioner in support of transfer are that he cannot comprehend the language of proceedings i.e. Tamil used in Salem Court.
3. He also argued that the distance between his place of residence i.e. Indore and Salem is 2000km and there is no direct connectivity between the two destinations.
4. The petitioner also states that the respondent has influence in Salem and can manipulate the process of investigation and trial and therefore he wants the proceeding to be conducted impartially and independently in an alternate location.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

1. The respondent is represented by learned senior advocate Mr.Gopal Sankarnarayan. He argues that the petitioner has delayed the action of transfer petition because as per record the case was registered on April, 2018 and the transfer petition was filed on 12 January 2021 after the case had made significant progress and has reached the advanced stage of cross examination.
2. He also pointed out the fact that the petitioner is excused from personal appearance for the proceedings by the order of the Delhi High Court. It is also asserted that the case in Salem Court involves criminal elements which should not be mixed with civil case. The danger of partiality in conduct of proceedings which is alleged by the petitioner is also challenged on the ground that there is no concrete and cogent evidence in support of the contention therefore it cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT

The transfer petition was dismissed by the bench of the Supreme Court. The court held that the plea of transfer under sec 406 of CrPC cannot be solely entertained on the ground of language barrier because aid of a translator or an interpreter can also be availed in such cases. It said that if a court hearing a case has proper authoritative jurisdiction to decide the case then it cannot be transferred only on the basis of language problem faced by one of the parties. It also stated that a case can be transferred under sec 406 of CrPC only if it is essential for fulfilling the ends of justice and it cannot be invoked merely for the sake of catering to the needs of convenience or inconvenience of any one party. No order related to cost of the litigation was passed by the court.

ANALYSIS

The decision in this case is an important step in the direction of interpretation of sec 406 of CrPC which talks about the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. The decision strictly stated that for a case to become eligible for transfer it must have some legal impediments for the resolution of which transfer is necessary and the only solution available. The order of Supreme Court dismissing the transfer petition is a right initiative to discourage superficial and troublesome petitions demanding transfer merely on the basis of language, distance, similarity, lack of neutrality without any credible evidence supporting those claims.

CONCLUSION

The case in question pertained to the transfer petition lodged by the petitioner against the lawsuit initiated by the respondent in Salem District Court, Tamil Nadu. Its main issue revolved around whether the respondent’s case could be moved from Salem to Delhi Court under sec 406 of CrPC. After reviewing the reasons cited by petitioner for requesting the transfer and examining the past decisions, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled to reject the petition stating that unless and until relevant and logical evidence isn’t brought before the court to substantiate the points argued by the petitioner i.e. similarity between the subjects of both the cases, suspicion of impartiality in the conduct of trial the petition for transfer cannot be sustained and therefore stands overruled.

REFERENCES

1. Indian Kanoon

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50167218

2. MYLAWMAN

https://www.mylawman.co.in/2021/09/case-briefs-important-supreme-court.html

3. spicyIP 

https://spicyip.com/2021/05/a-short-note-on-a-recent-supreme-court-judgment-pertaining-to-a-transfer-petition-involving-a-trademark-dispute.html

Written by Pushkarni Nandkumar Bhagwat an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.