The intent behind incorporating the summary judgement procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner.
In case of Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev and Another[1] the court held “Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgement against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression “real” directs the Court to examine whether there is a “realistic” as opposed to “fanciful” prospects of success. This Court is of the view that the expression “no genuine issue requiring a trial” in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and “no other compelling reason….. for trial” in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak v. Fred Mauldin, 2014 SCC OnLine Can SC 53, in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.”
In the latest case of Sporta Technologies Private Limited & Anr. v. Virat Saxena[2] plaintiff no. 1 Dream11 Fantasy Private Limited had accused the respondent of trademark infringement and passing of. As per the contents of the plaint filed, the plaintiffs learnt of the domain name http://www.dream11.bet being operated by the defendant as also a YouTube Channel, which contained match-prediction videos and gambling sites. Upon investigation it was found that the defendant’s website contains Dream 11 marks. The plaintiffs filed the present suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant. Defendant at the same time also failed to file its Written Statement and the court proceeded exparte.
The plaintiffs relied on the case of Satya Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.[3], submits that as the defendant has failed to appear in the proceedings and voluntarily chosen not to respond to the plaint, it is indicative of the fact that the defendant has nothing substantial to urge by way of a response to the allegations in the plaint. He submits that this is a fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules.
The court held that in the case[4], the defendant has chosen neither to file its written statements nor to enter appearance in the suit to defend the same. In the court’s opinion, therefore, this case is fit for Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of the IPD Rules and deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.
Conclusion:
The courts have time and again preferred the path of summary judgement as it is more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result. Also the courts adopt the summary judgement procedure when it is of the opinion that the defendant has nothing substantial to urge by way of a response to the allegations in the plaint or has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
[1] 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764
[2] CS(COMM) 59/2020 & I.A.1688/2020
[3] 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508
[4] Infra
DUCTUS EDGE 