Supreme Court of India

Wander Ltd v Antox India (P) Ltd

1990 Supp SCC 72719901 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Antox sued Wander for passing off in respect of the medicinal product Cal-De-Ce, claiming rights in the mark by continuous use. Wander claimed to be the registered proprietor, under whose arrangement Antox had manufactured the tablets. The single judge refused a temporary injunction; a Division Bench of the Madras High Court granted it on appeal.
Issue
Whether the Division Bench was right to reverse the single judge's refusal of the injunction.
Held
In appeals against the exercise of discretion, the appellate court will not substitute its own discretion except where the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or the court ignored the settled principles of law on interlocutory injunctions. It will not reassess the material merely because it would have reached a different conclusion. The Division Bench had not dislodged the single judge's prima facie finding of the defendant's prior use. The appeals were allowed and the single judge's order restored.
Principle
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretion on an interlocutory injunction unless it was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or settled principles were ignored
Cite this

Facts

  • Antox sued Wander for passing off in respect of the medicinal product Cal-De-Ce, claiming rights in the mark by continuous use. Wander claimed to be the registered proprietor, under whose arrangement Antox had manufactured the tablets. The single judge refused a temporary injunction; a Division Bench of the Madras High Court granted it on appeal.

Issue

  1. Whether the Division Bench was right to reverse the single judge's refusal of the injunction.

Held

  • In appeals against the exercise of discretion, the appellate court will not substitute its own discretion except where the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely, or the court ignored the settled principles of law on interlocutory injunctions. It will not reassess the material merely because it would have reached a different conclusion. The Division Bench had not dislodged the single judge's prima facie finding of the defendant's prior use. The appeals were allowed and the single judge's order restored.

Ratio decidendi

An appeal against an interlocutory injunction order is an appeal on principle; the appellate court interferes only for arbitrariness, perversity or disregard of settled principles.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Cite in any answer on appeals from orders under O.XXXIX (O.XLIII R.1(r)) and on the discretionary nature of interim relief.

Cite this

Citation

Wander Ltd v Antox India (P) Ltd 1990 Supp SCC 727

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/330608/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.