ORA/337/2013/TM/MUM and Order No. 76 of 2015. Case: Home Box Office Inc. Vs Ogilvy & Mather Limited and Ors.. Intellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Case NumberORA/337/2013/TM/MUM and Order No. 76 of 2015
Party NameHome Box Office Inc. Vs Ogilvy & Mather Limited and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Rajesh Ramanathan and For Respondents: Niranjan Vaghela
JudgesK.N. Basha, J. (Chairman) and Sanjeev Kumar Chaswal, Member (T)
IssueLimitation Act, 1963 - Section 5
Judgement DateApril 17, 2015
CourtIntellectual Propery Appellate Board Cases

Order:

K.N. Basha, J. (Chairman)

  1. This matter is posted today before this Bench for extension of time and condoning the delay for filing the counter statement by the first respondent herein. This Bench is usually granting the extension of time on the basis of circulation of the matter before the Bench. However, in view of the conduct of first respondent herein for not filing the counter statement even after the extended period till 15/05/2014 coupled with the fact that the applicant herein has raised objection for extension of time, the matter is posted today before us.

  2. Mr. Niranjan Vaghela, the learned counsel for the condone delay petitioner/first respondent and Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant are present today.

  3. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that the delay occurred only due to the negotiation that took place between the parties with a view to resolve the matter amicably and the same failed and the counter statement was made ready but awaited the sanction of the respondent's company which resulted in the delay of 180 days. It is contended that the delay is not willful but only due to the above said circumstances.

  4. Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant would vehemently contend that the petitioner has not assigned any valid reason and also not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is submitted that the negotiation took place between the parties was over within the extended period upto 15/05/2014 and as such there is no justification to assign the said reason for not filing the counter statement. It is contended that the condone delay petition is vague and bald statement not satisfying the basic requirements showing sufficient cause to condone the delay. Therefore, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

  5. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and also perused the petition and objection raised by the respondent/applicant.

  6. At the outset it is to be stated that the first respondent/petitioner herein has not utilized the liberty of filing the counterstatement within the extended period upto 15/05/2014 and further the petition also does not contain any fundamental and basic details or reasons resulting the delay in filing the counter statement. However, it is the specific stand of the petitioner/respondent to the effect that the delay was mainly due to the negotiation and conciliation that took place between the parties and same continued even after the extended period of 15/05/2014. The said factor was disputed by Mr. Rajesh Ramanathan, the learned counsel for the respondent/applicant. The petitioner had to file affidavit by specifically mentioning the reasons and in the case, we are not inclined to further delay the matter by giving some more time to the petitioner to file better...

To continue reading

Request your trial