JUDGMENT
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The second petitioner Janki Dass Jain is the father of the first petitioner Jaininder Jain and the third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The third respondent Arihant Jain is another son of the second petitioner. 5th respondent Smt. Raman Jain is the wife of the third respondent. 4th respondent Vishwa Jain is another son of the second petitioner and the 6th respondent Smt. Neelam Jain is the wife of the 4th respondent. It is common ground that the parties were carrying on business under various partnership deeds and we are concerned with the trade mark ‘Kangaro’. On 25.9.1996 a notice was given by the Registrar to Mr. P.K. Talwar, Advocate according to the learned counsel for petitioners he was only counsel for Janki Dass Jain and Smt. Kiran Jain but he did not respond.
2. On 30.10.1996 order was passed by the Registrar ordering the TM-24 in favour of the respondents 3 to 6.
3. The leaned counsel for the petitioners ambits that there was a family arrangement between the parties on 10/14.4.1995 and that document gives rights to the respective trade marks and trade names and that was not filed by the respondents 3 to 6 before the Registrar and there was suppression. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the family arrangement, whatever the nomenclature employed, that is subject-matter of decision by the Ludhiana Court.
4. It is stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 that the complete set of documents forming part of this family arrangement was not filed and two important pages had been suppressed by the petitioners which respondents 3 to 6 had disclosed alongwith the written statement in this Court and respondents 3 to 6 have no objection to the proposed terms in those two sheets being considered and orders passed on the basis of those proposals.
5. The learned senior counsel also submitted that the document in its complete form with the two pages was not filed by the petitioners before the Ludhiana Court which is subject-matter of decision of that Court, as I had stated earlier. The learned senior counsel also stated that the petitioners had obtained an order of status-quo and there is an order against the respondents 3 to 6 and there is no injury now, caused to the petitioners.
6. The question is whether pending disposal of the main Co. 4/97 the petitioners are entitled to stay the of operation of the order dated 30.10.1996 by the Registrar of Trade Marks.
7. The learned senior counsel for respondents 3 to 6 brought to my notice the written statement where it is stated that substantial payments had been made by respondents 3 to 6 to the second petitioner and the third petitioner, who were partners of Kangaro Industries and those payments are admitted by them.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that no doubt payments had been made but crores of rupees are due from respondents 3 to 6 and what is paid is negligible and those payments are not relevant for the purpose of considering the question of stay.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the second petitioner wrote to the Registrar about the proceedings and he was asked to produce documents and the Registrar did not disclose to the petitioners about the order that was passed on 30.10.1996 and, therefore, the order dated 30.10.1996 was not passed in the normal course of business.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties for a considerable length of time and perused the documents. I am not able to accept the case of the petitioners that they had no knowledge of the proceedings which culminated in the order dated 30.10.1996. The only point that is now sought to be made out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Mr. Talwar was the counsel for petitioners 2 & 3 and he was not the counsel for the first petitioner and the second petitioner was using the trade mark since 1959, therefore, no knowledge could be imputed to the first petitioner. Mr. Talwar, the learned counsel had continued to appear in the matter for the petitioners. The documents filed as family arrangement projected by the petitioners is in dispute before the Ludhiana Court. The Registrar had given notice to Mr. Talwar and it was only thereafter the order was passed by him. After coming to know of the order the petitioners had written to the Registrar. The petitioners admit the payments made by respondents 3 to 6 as stated in the written statement. But they tried to get over it by stating that large amount are due from the respondents 3 to 6. I am only concerned with an interim application. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to stay the operation of the order dated 30.10.1996. The application to stay is dismissed. No order as to costs. Co. 4/97
11. Post the matter on the 17th of September 1997 before the Joint Registrar.