Full Text
Translation output
$-3 &6 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 720/2009, LA. 5353/2009
M/S BHATIA INDUSTRIES & OTHERS Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aayushmaan Gauba with Mr. Gaurav Miglani, Adv.
CS(OS) 720/2009, LA. 5353/2009
M/S BHATIA INDUSTRIES & OTHERS Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Aayushmaan Gauba with Mr. Gaurav Miglani, Adv.
VERSUS
M/S PANDEY INDUSTRIES & OTHERS Defendant
Through: Mr. Sony Kumari, proxy counsel.
Through: Mr. Sony Kumari, proxy counsel.
CS(OS) 681/2011,1.As. 14545/2011 and 14546/2011
M/S PANDEY INDUSTRIES Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sony Kumari, proxy counsel.
M/S PANDEY INDUSTRIES Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sony Kumari, proxy counsel.
VERSUS
M/S BHATIA INDUSTRIES & OTHERS Defendant
Through: Mr. Aayushmaan Gauba with Mr. Gaurav Miglani, Adv.
Through: Mr. Aayushmaan Gauba with Mr. Gaurav Miglani, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
05.02.2015 On 13.01.2005, statement ofMr. D.K Yadav, the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 & 2 was recorded to the effect that the defendants were not using the trademark of the plaintiff (M/s. Bhatia Industries) and the defendants would have no objection if the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in terms of the prayer clause. It was further stated that the business activities of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had been closed. Indeed, the defendants had withdrawn their suit being CS(OS) 681/2011 against the plaintiff.
In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 & 2, the suit is decreed in terms ofthe prayer clause.
Let a decree sheetbe drawn up accordingly.
/AZIRI, J FEBRUARY 05,2015/acm 2015:DHC:11865
05.02.2015 On 13.01.2005, statement ofMr. D.K Yadav, the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 & 2 was recorded to the effect that the defendants were not using the trademark of the plaintiff (M/s. Bhatia Industries) and the defendants would have no objection if the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in terms of the prayer clause. It was further stated that the business activities of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had been closed. Indeed, the defendants had withdrawn their suit being CS(OS) 681/2011 against the plaintiff.
In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 & 2, the suit is decreed in terms ofthe prayer clause.
Let a decree sheetbe drawn up accordingly.
/AZIRI, J FEBRUARY 05,2015/acm 2015:DHC:11865
JUDGMENT