Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
Bombay HC issues Arrest Warrant against Absentee Defendant in Trademark Infringement Suit

Bombay HC issues Arrest Warrant against Absentee Defendant in Trademark Infringement Suit

Bar & Bench

The Bombay High Court on Monday issued a bailable warrant of arrest against a defendant in a case relating to Trademark infringement and passing off.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla noted that despite the Court’s previous orders, one of the Defendants in the case, Jitendra Singh, failed to remain present before the Court. The copy of the Court order mandating his personal presence was delivered to him via multiple methods including Whatsapp and email, but the Defendant remained absent.

The Court, thus, issued a bailable warrant of arrest against the Defendant.

The Plaintiff, Birla Edutech and the Defendant company had signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) regarding a franchise agreement between them. The same never came to be executed between the parties.

A suit for trademark infringement and passing off came to be filed before the Bombay High Court with the Plaintiff contending that the Defendant could not have used the trademark of the plaintiff since no definitive agreement was signed.

When the Defendant failed to appear before the Court despite the service of notice, the Court appointed a Receiver.

The receiver raided the premises of the Defendant to find paraphernalia like application forms, flyers and banners carrying the trademark of the Plaintiff. The same was seized by the Court receiver.

The Court then passed an order mandating the personal presence of two of the Defendants in the case on the next date of hearing. While one of the Defendants complied with the Court’s order, Singh remained absent.

Thereafter, the Court passed an ad-interim order directing Singh to be present before Court on December 3 failing which an arrest warrant would be issued against him. Despite this order, Singh did not appear before the Court.

Accordingly, the Court has now issued a bailable arrest warrant, in the sum of Rs. 15000. The Prothonotary and the Senior Master are required to forward the warrant to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai with a direction for Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj to execute the warrant by the returnable date, which is December 10.

The Plaintiffs were represented by advocates Hiren Kamod, Vaibhav Keni, and Sumeet Rane who were instructed by Legasis Partners.

Read Order: