Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th November, 2022
MR. ANIL RATHI & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra, Ms. Srijan Uppal, Mr. Abhishek Bhati and
Mr. Yashasvi Gupta, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Subhash Chawla, Advocate for D-1, 3, 4 and 5.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Subhash Chawla, Mr. Rupib Bahl and Mr. Karan Bajaj, Advocates for D-2.
JUDGMENT
1. An affidavit of undertaking dated 10.11.2022 has been filed by Mr. Ghasi Lal Chaudhary, one of the Directors of Defendant No. 2, relevant portion of which reads as under:-
2. At the outset, Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 2 submits that due to an inadvertent typographical error in line 5 of paragraph 4 of the affidavit, word ‘without’ occurs which should be read as ‘with’.
3. On oral prayer of learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No. 2, typographical error is corrected. Para 4 of the affidavit will read as follows:- “....save and except with a valid license and in accordance”
4. Mr. Sagar Chandra, learned counsel for Plaintiffs submits that the Plaintiffs are satisfied with the undertaking given in the affidavit and suit can be decreed in terms of the undertaking given on behalf of Defendant No. 2.
5. Accordingly, suit stands decreed qua Defendant No. 2 in terms of the undertaking given on behalf of Defendant No. 2.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Defendants No. 1 and 3, on instructions, states that the said Defendants have neither used the trademark “RATHI” nor do they intend to use the same in future and that a categorical stand has been taken in writing in the written statement, more particularly, in para 35 of the common written statement filed on behalf of Defendants No. 1 to 5 and 9 to 12.
7. Insofar as Defendants No. 4 and 5 are concerned, learned counsel for Plaintiffs draws the attention of the Court to an order dated 16.10.2019, where a submission was made by learned counsel for Defendants No. 2 to 6, 11 and 12 that the said Defendants, have in the past, issued licenses in accordance with the rights conferred on the trustees as per the Trust Deed dated 28.06.1995 and that they would confine themselves to issuance of licenses in accordance with the Trust Deed.
8. Adding to the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for Defendants No. 4 and 5 submits that the Defendants shall confine themselves for issue of licenses to the covenants of the Trust Deed and MOU dated 24.06.1995.
9. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that Plaintiffs do not wish to press any relief against Defendants No. 6 to
15.
10. Suit is accordingly decreed in the aforesaid terms qua Defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5. Needless to state the assurances and undertakings given by respective Defendants shall form a part of the decree and bind the parties thereto.
11. Plaintiffs are entitled to refund of the Court Fees deposited by them, in accordance with provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Section 89 CPC, 1908.
12. Registry is directed to draw up the Decree sheet.
13. Registry is directed to refund the Court fees deposited by the Plaintiffs.
14. Suit is accordingly disposed of along with pending applications.
JYOTI SINGH, J NOVEMBER 11, 2022