Schneider Electric Industries SA v Telemecanique & Controls (India) Ltd (2000)

Summary

“This application under Section 151 CPC was filed after the orders on the interim injunction IA. No. 8522/99 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 GPC, filed by the plaintiff had been reserved.” (para 1) “The principal plea in the aforesaid application is that certain documents have been suppressed from the Court. There has been fraudulent suppression and fabrication” ... “and the plaintiff has altered the records of the Controller of Patents and has not only misled this Court but the Controller of Patents. It is further stated that patents are not worked by the plaintiff.” (para 2) Of the Agreement to Confirm dated 30.9.1997, the defendant’s case was that it “was neither filed nor mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint.” (para 5) On working, “reliance has been placed on the Gazette Notification dated 23rd October, of 1999 of the Controller of Patents” and “on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Franz Xaver Huemer v. New Yash Engineers, 1996 PTC (16)(DB) 232.” (para 9)

The Court held that “at this stage it is not necessary for me to consider these pleas raised in the defendant’s application. These pleas can only be considered after evidence has been led at the time of final hearing of the suit.” (para 7) It held that “the fact that the documents were not filed alongwith the plaint cannot necessarily lead straightway to the conclusion that the documents were fabricated and sham.” (para 8) On working, “at this stage I am not satisfied that the 5 patents are not being worked by the plaintiff.” (para 10) “In this view of the matter, prayer (a) in the affidavit supporting this IA. is allowed and the defendant is permitted to place the additional facts and documents on record.” Summoning the Patent Office records was “declined”, and the prayer for rejection of the plaint “cannot be granted at this stage in the present application” (para 11).

What the court decided

1. Procedure. Suppression pleas before the pleadings close. “Even though the defendant has filed a comprehensive reply to the aforesaid application for interim injunction, the defendant itself has yet to file the written statement in the case.” (para 6) “In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has yet to file its replication and even if some grievance was raised in the written statement, while completing the pleadings the documents complained of could have been brought on record in the replication and I am of the view that at this stage it is not necessary for me to consider these pleas raised in the defendant’s application. These pleas can only be considered after evidence has been led at the time of final hearing of the suit.” (paras 6–7)
2. Documents not filed with the plaint. “It does not lie in the defendant’s mouth at this stage to urge the plea about fraudulent suppression of sham documents as the fact that the documents were not filed alongwith the plaint cannot necessarily lead straightway to the conclusion that the documents were fabricated and sham. This can only be decided after evidence is led. The case of the plaintiff is not altered in a significant manner by filing the agreement to confirm or by relying upon the deed of assignment.” (para 8)
3. Working of the five patents. The plaintiff had answered that “the Gazette Notification is based on the submission of the patentee in 1996 that the patents were not being worked” and that “in the years 1998 &, 1999 the statement of working of the patents has been filed and has not been taken into account by the Controller of Patents”, and had sought to distinguish Franz Xaver Huemer v New Yash Engineers (1996) on the ground that “the plaintiff’s products are being sold commercially and the public is not being deprived of the benefits of the patents” (para 9). The Court held: “After considering the rival pleas of the parties on this issue. I am of the view that at this stage I am not satisfied that the 5 patents are not being worked by the plaintiff.” “The defendant has produced the statement of working for the year 1998 & 1999 which were filed with the Controller of Patents and has also been commercially exploiting the goods patented in the market. Consequently I am unable to agree with the defendant’s plea at this juncture.” (paras 9–10)
4. Procedure. Additional documents and the Controller’s records. “In this view of the matter, prayer (a) in the affidavit supporting this IA. is allowed and the defendant is permitted to place the additional facts and documents on record. In so far as prayer (b) for summoning the records from the Office of the Controller of Patents, Delhi and Calcutta is concerned, the same is declined but it is open to the defendant to file certified copies of any documents which it wishes to rely upon.” (para 11)
5. Procedure. Rejection of the plaint. “In so far as prayer (c) for allowing defendant’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint is concerned, the prayer cannot be granted at this stage in the present application as the defendant/applicant has been unable to make out a case for rejection of the plaint as” it “has not demonstrated non-disclosure of a cause of action, undevaluation, insufficient stamping or bar set up by any law.” (para 11)

Subsequent treatment

No later judicial treatment and no further appeal traced as of 16 October 2026.