Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
✓ Supreme Court of India in Kuldip Singh Vs. Subhash Chandra Jain & Ors had recognized the doctrine of quia timet by referring to it as a bill in equity. The Court in such cases, if satisfied, may appoint a receiver, direct security to be furnished, issue an injunction, etc.
✓ This doctrine although not discussed in the judgment was adopted in spirit in Jawahar Engineering Co. v. Javahar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 1984 i.e. even before the Kuldip Singh case, wherein a division bench of the Delhi High Court observed that when an injunction is sought, it is not necessary for the threat to have materialized. Given the prohibitory nature of an injunctive relief, it was observed that the same may granted to prevent an injury which was "likely to happen". Subsequently, the principle of quia timet has been substantially recognized by various Courts.
✓ Courts have constantly relied on Fletcher v. Bealey to explain the factors which have to be considered before granting relief such as proof of imminent danger and risk of substantial losses in case the threat materializes are a must for such relief. The damage which is apprehended should be of an irreparable nature and so imminent that if the damage occurs, the aggrieved party will be unable to protect itself if the remedy is denied in a quia timet action.
This relief is available against any tortious liability and is not restricted to the realm of trademark law.
✓ Mars Incorporated v. Kumar Krishna Mukherjee exhaustively laid down the tests applicable for the grant of injunctive relief in trademark disputes
