Sri Bharath Reddy vs. M/S Nagarjuna Group Of Restaurants

Held

The High Court held that the amendment sought by the respondent was necessary for the complete and comprehensive adjudication of the dispute. The Court reasoned that while the original pleadings were based on 'Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984', the proposed amendment to restrict it to 'Nagarjuna 1984' was a correction of pleadings to align with the actual registered trademark. The Court found that this correction would neither introduce a new cause of action nor alter the scope of the suit, nor would it take away any admissions made by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the respondent's counsel submitted that no further evidence would be led due to the amendment, thus causing no prejudice to the petitioner. The Court noted that even without the amendment, the trial court could adjudicate based on the registered trademark certificate, but the amendment facilitates bringing pleadings into conformity. The Court found the judgments relied upon by the petitioner did not warrant interference with the Commercial Court's order. The ratio is that amendments to pleadings after trial commencement should be liberally permitted if necessary for comprehensive adjudication, provided they do not cause prejudice and align pleadings with factual records like registered trademarks.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Bharath Reddy, owner of 'Nagrajuna Andhra Style Hotel', filed a writ petition challenging an order by the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court allowed an application by the respondent, M/s Nagarjuna Group of Restaurants, to amend their plaint in a commercial suit (O.S. No.1536/2024). The respondent's suit sought to restrain the petitioner from using the trade name 'Nagrajuna', alleging similarity to the respondent's trade name 'Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984'. The amendment sought by the respondent was to delete "Andhra Style" and substitute it with "plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘Nagarjuna 1984’". The petitioner argued this amendment would alter the basis of the suit and affect evidence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, to change the registered trademark from 'Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984' to 'Nagarjuna 1984', would alter the basis of the suit and prejudice the defendant, considering the suit is founded on the premise of the former trademark and the defendant's business name includes 'Andhra Style'? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the entire plaint was based on the registered copyright "Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984", and the proposed amendment restricting it to "Nagarjuna 1984" would alter the entire basis of the suit, affect existing evidence, and potentially remove admissions. They relied on Supreme Court judgments in Basavaraj v. Indira, Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, and Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the initial statement "Nagarjuna Andhra Style 1984" was due to an oversight or typographical error, and their case is founded on the registered trademark "Nagarjuna 1984". They contended the amendment would neither alter the cause of action, take away admissions, nor enlarge the suit's scope, but would bring pleadings in conformity with the registered trademark. They also stated no further evidence would be adduced.