M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. v. M/S SAFVOLTS SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD.

1. At the outset, counsel for the plaintiff states that during the pendency of the present suit, the defendant company’s corporate name and trademark was changed and an amended memo of parties reflecting the current corporate name of the defendant has been filed and a copy is handed over to the other side.

2. Counsel for the defendant confirms the fact that the corporate name of her client as also its trademark has changed. A copy of the said amended memo of parties is taken on record.

3. Pursuant to the parties being referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, a report dated 7.7.2015 has been forwarded by the Mediator, enclosing therewith a Settlement 2015:DHC:7200 Agreement dated 22.5.2015.

4. Counsels for the parties state that the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at between the parties have been recorded in para 6 of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.5.2015 wherein, the defendant has stated that it has changed its corporate name, vide Board Resolution dated 14.4.2015. A copy of the Board Resolution and the approval letter from the ROC has been enclosed with the Settlement Agreement. Further, the defendant has agreed not to use the trademark, “MAX” or any other trademark that is identical/ deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark, “MEX” that may amount to infringement of its trademark. The defendant has also given an undertaking to the effect that it is not in possession of any goods bearing the trademark, “MEX/MAX” or any other deceptively similar trademark.

5. Counsels for the parties state that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the suit may be decreed in terms of the prayers made in para 34(a) to (d) of the plaint as the plaintiff does not wish to press the reliefs prayed for in para 34(e) and (f) of the plaint.

6. The Court has pursued the Settlement Agreement dated 22.5.2015. The same has been signed by the authorized representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant, and their respective counsels as also by the learned Mediator. Enclosed with the Settlement Agreement, is the Board Resolution of the defendant company and the approval letter issued by the ROC.

7. As counsels for the parties jointly state that their clients have arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, there appears no legal impediment in accepting the said settlement. The parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 22.5.2015.

8. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at and recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 22.05.2015 and the prayers made in para 34(a) to (d) of the plaint, while leaving the parties to bear their own expenses.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement through court annexed mediation, prior to the stage of framing of issues, the plaintiff is entitled to claim refund of the court fees in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act.

10. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the plaintiff for refund of the court fees, as per law.

11. The suit is disposed of. File be consigned to the record room. HIMA KOHLI, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2015 mk/ap