Case: Terapalli Dyvasahata Kumar Vs. S.M.Kantha Raju (Dead) Thr. Lr.

76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 which provided an appeal from any decision of the Registrar to "the High Court having jurisdiction". This Court held that the Trade Marks Act does not provide for or lay down any procedure for the conduct of an appeal in the High Court. This being so, this Court held: "The Trade Marks Act does not provide or lay down any procedure for the future conduct or career of that appeal in the High Court, indeed section 77 of the Act provides that the High Court can if it likes make rules in the matter. Obviously after the appeal had reached the High Court it has to be determined according to the rules of practice and procedure of that Court and in accordance with the provisions of the charter under which that Court is constituted and which confers on it power in respect to the method and manner of exercising that jurisdiction. The rule is well settled that when a statute directs that an appeal shall lie to a Court already established, then that appeal must be regulated by the practice and procedure of that Court. This rule was very succinctly stated by Viscount Haldane L.C. in National Telephone Co., Ltd. v. Postmaster-General [1913] A.C. 546, in these terms : -"When a question is stated to be referred to an established Court without more, it, in my opinion, imports that the ordinary incidents of the procedure of that Court are to attach, and also that any general right of appeal from its decision likewise attaches."The same view was expressed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar v. Ra. Chandrasekhara Thevar (1947) 74 I.A. 264, wherein it was said :-"Where a legal right is in dispute and the ordinary Courts of the country are seized of such dispute the Courts are governed by the ordinary rules of procedure applicable thereto and an appeal lies if authorized by such rules, notwithstanding that the legal right claimed arises under a special statute which does not, in terms confer a right of appeal."Again in Secretary of State for India v. Chellikani Rama Rao (1916) I.L.R. 39 Madras 617, when dealing with the case under the Madras Forest Act their Lordships observed as follows : -"It was contended on behalf of the appellant that all further proceedings in Courts in India or by way of appeal were incompetent, these being excluded by the terms of the statute just quoted. In their Lordships opinion this objection is not well-founded. Their view is that when proceedings of this character reach the District Court, that Court is appealed to as one of the ordinary Courts of the country, with regard to whose procedure, orders, and decrees the ordinary rules of the Civil Procedure Code apply."Though the facts of the cases laying down the above rule were not exactly similar to the facts of the present case, the principle enunciated therein is one of general application and has an apposite application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act confers a right of appeal to the High Court and says nothing more about it. That being so, the High Court being seized at such of the appellate jurisdiction conferred by section 76 it has to exercise that jurisdiction in the same manner as it exercises its other appellate jurisdiction and when such jurisdiction is exercised by a single Judge, his judgment becomes subject to appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent there being nothing to the contrary in the Trade Marks Act." 15. The same position obtains in the present case as Section 23 of the 2001 Act also does not provide for any procedure for the conduct of the application in the District Court concerned. This judgment would therefore apply on all fours to the facts in the present case. However, learned counsel for the respondent brought to our notice a judgment in Stridewell Leathers (P) Ltd. and Others v. Bhankerpur Simbhaoli Beverages (P) Ltd., and Others, (1994) 1 SCC 34. The question for decision in the appeal before this Court was the meaning of the expression "the High Court" in Section 10-F of the Companies Act, 1956. The Companies Act defined "the Court" in Section 2(11) as follows:- "(11) the Court means,- (a) with respect to any matter relating to a company (other than any offence against this Act), the Court having jurisdiction under this Act with respect to that matter relating to that company, as provided in Section 10."and then went on to speak of "the court having jurisdiction" in Section 10(1)(a) as follows:10. Jurisdiction of Courts.- (1) The Court having jurisdiction under this Act shall be- (a) the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the registered office of the company concerned is situate, except to the extent to which jurisdiction has been conferred on any District Court or District Courts subordinate to that High Court in pursuance of sub-section (2)" 16. This being the case, this Court came to the conclusion that the High Court in Section 10-F means the High Court having jurisdiction in relation to the place at which the Registered Office of the Company concerned is situate, as indicated by Section 2(11) read with Section 10(1)(a) of the Companies Act. 17. This judgment would be relevant if the pari materia provision under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had fallen for decision. As has been pointed out above, this provision gives only one court jurisdiction - the principal court of original civil jurisdiction of the District in which the chief building of the society is situate, somewhat like Section 10-F of the Companies Act. Inasmuch as this Section is completely distinct from Sections 23 of the 2001 Act and 11 of the earlier Telangana Act, it is clear that the judgment in James Chadwicks case squarely applies to the present case, and not the aforesaid judgment.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. We are inclined to observe that what learned counsel for the respondents has argued before us is correct. However, in view of the recurring nature of the question that arises before us, it is important to settle the law once and for all for future guidance in cases like the present one.It will be apparent that the scheme of the Societies Registration Act on the one hand, and that of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Act and the consolidating Act of 2001 on the other is completely different. On the one hand, the 1860 Act refers the dispute that arises under Section 13 only to the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction of the District in which the chief building of the Society is situate. Under this Act therefore, jurisdiction is confined to one court and one court only: that is the principal court of original civil jurisdiction where the actual physical main building of the society is situate. On the other hand, Section 11 of the 1940 Act and Section 23 of the 2001 Act enable the person aggrieved to file an application in the "District Court concerned". It is this expression that has to be construed by this Court in the present case.13. As the District Judge correctly states in the impugned judgment dated 17.01.2005, where the expression "District Court" is not defined by the special enactment in which it occurs, it must necessarily take with it all the trappings that go along with a District Court that is established under the general law. This would necessarily mean that the provisions applicable to District Courts generally would apply, and that therefore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, when it comes to determining the jurisdiction of such District Court, would necessarily apply.15. The same position obtains in the present case as Section 23 of the 2001 Act also does not provide for any procedure for the conduct of the application in the District Court concerned. This judgment would therefore apply on all fours to the facts in the present case.This judgment would be relevant if the pari materia provision under Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 had fallen for decision. As has been pointed out above, this provision gives only one court jurisdictionthe principal court of original civil jurisdiction of the District in which the chief building of the society is situate, somewhat like Sectionof the Companies Act. Inasmuch as this Section is completely distinct from Sections 23 of the 2001 Act and 11 of the earlier Telangana Act, it is clear that the judgment in James Chadwicks case squarely applies to the present case, and not the aforesaid judgment.