Full Text
Translation output
lL^ l, fr HIGH COURT OF DELHI FAO(OS) szOl2OLO
DUKE FASHIONS APPellant
Through: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Wadhwa and Mr.Zeeshan Khan, Advocates.
DUKE FASHIONS APPellant
Through: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Wadhwa and Mr.Zeeshan Khan, Advocates.
VERSUS
GIRISH HOSIERY PVT LTD & ORS Respondent
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr.Umesh Mishra, Advocates.
\ \'r + FAo(os) 539/2or.o GIRISH HOSIERY PVT LTD & ORS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr,Umesh VCTSUS
DUKE FASHIONS INDIA LTD Respondent
Through: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr,Sumit Advocates, FAO(OS) s OlzOLO
GIRISH HOSIERY PVT LTD & ORS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr,Umesh
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr.Umesh Mishra, Advocates.
\ \'r + FAo(os) 539/2or.o GIRISH HOSIERY PVT LTD & ORS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr,Umesh VCTSUS
DUKE FASHIONS INDIA LTD Respondent
Through: Ms.Anuradha Salhotra, Mr,Sumit Advocates, FAO(OS) s OlzOLO
GIRISH HOSIERY PVT LTD & ORS Appellant
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra and Mr,Umesh
VERSUS
DUKE FASHIONS INDIA LTD ...., Respondent
Through: Ms,Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Advocates.
FAO (OS) Nos.520/2010,53912010 and 540/2010 Page I of 3
2013:DHC:8003-DB ! ;4 t(
Through: Ms,Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Sumit Advocates.
FAO (OS) Nos.520/2010,53912010 and 540/2010 Page I of 3
2013:DHC:8003-DB ! ;4 t(
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY IilSHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAT]R
28.02.2013 It is agreed that the appeals be disposed of with the following agreed directions i) The interim orders impugned in the present cross-appeals would continue to operate till the decision before the IPAB and would not in any mimler prejudice the final verdict in the suit and the decision before the IPAB, being prima facie in character. ii) There are stated to be eleven registrations of Duke Fashions to which rectifications have been filed by Girish Hosiery Pvt. Ltd while in case of one registration of Girish Hosiery Pvt. Limited, the rectification has been frled by Duke Fashions. There is some controversy as to whether all these rectification applications are to be taken up together or separately. This aspect is left to the
IPAB. iii) The pleadings in the rectification application filed by Duke
Fashions is stated to be complete while in respect of the eleven rectification applications filed by Girish Hosiery Pvt. Lt4 the rejoinder has to be filed, which shall be filed within four weeks from today. This would ensure completion ofpleadings.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAT]R
28.02.2013 It is agreed that the appeals be disposed of with the following agreed directions i) The interim orders impugned in the present cross-appeals would continue to operate till the decision before the IPAB and would not in any mimler prejudice the final verdict in the suit and the decision before the IPAB, being prima facie in character. ii) There are stated to be eleven registrations of Duke Fashions to which rectifications have been filed by Girish Hosiery Pvt. Ltd while in case of one registration of Girish Hosiery Pvt. Limited, the rectification has been frled by Duke Fashions. There is some controversy as to whether all these rectification applications are to be taken up together or separately. This aspect is left to the
IPAB. iii) The pleadings in the rectification application filed by Duke
Fashions is stated to be complete while in respect of the eleven rectification applications filed by Girish Hosiery Pvt. Lt4 the rejoinder has to be filed, which shall be filed within four weeks from today. This would ensure completion ofpleadings.
ORDER
19 The IPAB has long sittings at Chennai though it does visit Delhi for its sittings. We are informed that if parties €Lre agreeable to FAO (OS) Nos.520/201 0, 53912010 and 540/2010 Page[2] of[3] t/ tl r[9] 4"'have the hearing at Chennai, expeditious hearing is possible and thus for that purpose, learned counsel for the parties agree that the hearing of the rectifications applications can take place at Chennai. The appeals accordingly stand disposed of. \l tr-* SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J, I t INDERMEET KAUR, J v{ FEBRUARY 28,2ol3ldm FAO (OS) NOos.520/2010, 539/2010 and 540/2010 Page 3of[3]