Fox Mandal instructs Penningtons in £100k London negligence order, may defend on jurisdiction

Fox HQ: Noida
Fox HQ: Noida
Fox Mandal has instructed London firm Penningtons Solicitors to defend against the £104,885 (Rs 96 lakh) professional negligence default judgment, potentially disputing it on jurisdictional grounds.

The Mercantile Court in the High Court of Justice in London awarded the amount to claimant Lawrence Karat in May of this year, after Fox did not show in court to defend against Karat’s claim of professional negligence against the firm, as reported by Legally India on Friday (26 July).

Pennington’s India co-head and dispute resolution head Rustom Dubash wrote a letter to Karat’s London lawyers Singhania & Co, also dated 26 July, stating that Penningtons was acting on behalf of Fox.

He wrote: “We wish to inform you that we will be advising our client to dispute jurisdiction and to have the default judgment set aside.”

Karat had alleged that Fox botched a patent registration in Mumbai and acted “unprofessionally”, after Mandal won the business in London, having been referred through a UK law firm, to advise Karat and his Hong Kong-headquartered company.

Fox’ Delhi-based managing partner Som Mandal confirmed in a text message that he had instructed Penningtons India co-heads Dubash and Saionton Basu.

In his letter, Dubash also asked Singhania for a copy of the claim form, the particulars of claim, the application for default judgment, the order, certificate and evidence of service, and any other court documents relating to the claim. Dubash did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Karat commented today that Mandal had been contacted “numerous times but as always declined to respond”. Mandal has had “ample opportunity to settle out of court” in this matter but he was “his own worst enemy”, added Karat.

Comments

Anon 29 Jul 2013, 11:25
+3 -0
Hope Penningtons take advance fees for this - given everything we know about Som Mandal's tendency to pay (or rather not pay) for work done!! Plus, I'm betting this one won't be cheap.
ABC 29 Jul 2013, 13:41
+1 -7
Is it Trademark or Patent case ? Hope LI has basic idea about difference between two? Looks like shady journalism where focus is more on sensationalisation of the issue and not focusing on the real issue.

Guys bring in some real journalism.
@ ABC 30 Jul 2013, 05:54
+1 -0
ABC, appreciate your love for IP and agony over the confusion between trademark and patent, but is that the crux of the story? Even for an IP guru, it should suffice to know that FM is facing a negligence claim over an IP filing. Would you rather have a "breaking" story with some defects or have an accurate but stale story? If the latter, go visit sites like Spicy IP.

RIP
Guest 29 Jul 2013, 13:56
+2 -0
Is Penningtons desperate for work.. a client who can't even pay his own employees. Also does this mean FM had no Insurance as usually would an Insurance firm not be appointed if they did?
abc 29 Jul 2013, 14:37
+0 -0
It is not necessary for an insurance firm to be appointed. Insurers sometimes also agree with the lawyers suggested by the insured depending on the specialisations of the lawyers.

If Insurers are involved then likelihood is that payment is by the insurers and so Penningtons would not be so apprehensive about pay.
kianganz 29 Jul 2013, 14:07
+0 -0
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. That should of course have read 'patent application' rather than trademark in this story. Error regretted and corrected.
Snoopy 30 Jul 2013, 10:32
+0 -0
1. Did FM have an engagement letter? If so, what did the dispute resolution clause provide?

2. Is an Indian court likely to enforce a foreign default judgment? What hurdles is Karat likely to face at that stage?
Scooter 31 Jul 2013, 16:43
+0 -0
One definite hurdle is a Criminal Case
SQ 17 Nov 2017, 06:32
+0 -0
Finally someone is suing Som Mandal after he did not pay his employees for years and years. Som has tendency of not mkaing his laeyers or bills of other law firms, now Penningtons would be soon suing him for non payment.