Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(OS) 1119/2007 & LA. Nos.23171/2015, 23172/2015, 23173/2015 & 23174/2015
SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD Plaintiff
Through Mr.Shrawan Chopra, Adv. with Ms.Prachi Agarwal, Adv.
CS(OS) 1119/2007 & LA. Nos.23171/2015, 23172/2015, 23173/2015 & 23174/2015
SASKEN COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD Plaintiff
Through Mr.Shrawan Chopra, Adv. with Ms.Prachi Agarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
MR. ANUPAM AGGARWAL & ORS Defendants
Through Mr.Alok Prakash, Adv.
Through Mr.Alok Prakash, Adv.
EX.P. 8/2015
SASKEN COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Decree Holder
Through Mr.Shrawan Chopra, Adv. with Ms.Prachi Agarwal, Adv.
SASKEN COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Decree Holder
Through Mr.Shrawan Chopra, Adv. with Ms.Prachi Agarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
ANUPAM AGARWAL & ORS
JUDGMENT
Debtors
Through Mr.Alok Prakash, Adv.
Through Mr.Alok Prakash, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
ORDER o/o 22.12.2015 The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing off as well as for damages, delivery up, etc. The suit was decreed with costs vide judgment dated
12^" October, 2009. In January, 2015, the plaintiff/decree-holder filed an execution petition being Ex.P.No.8/2015 for recovery of the decreetal amount. In the meanwhile, on May, 2014, the
2015:DHC:11909 defendants filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with
Section 151 CPC for setting-aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12^*^ October, 2009. Another application for condonation of delay in filing the above said application was also filed. However, both the applications were dismissed in default by order dated
November, 2014. The defendants thereafter filed fresh application for restoration of the earlier application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with other accompanying applications.
Learned counsel for the defendants on the last date of hearing had given the proposal to the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in f case the plaintiff will not press the execution petition, the defendants will fully comply with the decree already passed by judgment dated
12'^'^ October, 2009. Even today, when the matter Is taken up, the learned counsel for the defendants, upon instructions from his clients, states that the defendants are agreeable to suffer a decree for permanent injunction in terms of prayers (a) & (b) of para 30 of the plaint. Ordered accordingly. It is agreed by the defendants that they will take necessary steps to remove the name SASKEN from their corporate name 'Sasken Biotech Pvt. Ltd.' within a period of six weeks from today. After the expiry of six weeks, defendant No.l will file an affidavit before this Court that he has taken all the requisite steps for
^ removing the said name before the Registrar of Companies. Counsel also agrees that in case defendant No.2 will not take the steps within the period granted, the defendants under those circumstances will pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff within four weeks thereafter and the execution petition will also be revived. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is agreeable to the said suggestion. The present applications are accordingly disposed of.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendants, the plaintiff is not pressing the execution petition being
Ex.P.No.8/2015. The same is also disposed of.
DECEMBER 22, 2015 r-- singh;
ORDER o/o 22.12.2015 The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing off as well as for damages, delivery up, etc. The suit was decreed with costs vide judgment dated
12^" October, 2009. In January, 2015, the plaintiff/decree-holder filed an execution petition being Ex.P.No.8/2015 for recovery of the decreetal amount. In the meanwhile, on May, 2014, the
2015:DHC:11909 defendants filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 read with
Section 151 CPC for setting-aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12^*^ October, 2009. Another application for condonation of delay in filing the above said application was also filed. However, both the applications were dismissed in default by order dated
November, 2014. The defendants thereafter filed fresh application for restoration of the earlier application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with other accompanying applications.
Learned counsel for the defendants on the last date of hearing had given the proposal to the learned counsel for the plaintiff that in f case the plaintiff will not press the execution petition, the defendants will fully comply with the decree already passed by judgment dated
12'^'^ October, 2009. Even today, when the matter Is taken up, the learned counsel for the defendants, upon instructions from his clients, states that the defendants are agreeable to suffer a decree for permanent injunction in terms of prayers (a) & (b) of para 30 of the plaint. Ordered accordingly. It is agreed by the defendants that they will take necessary steps to remove the name SASKEN from their corporate name 'Sasken Biotech Pvt. Ltd.' within a period of six weeks from today. After the expiry of six weeks, defendant No.l will file an affidavit before this Court that he has taken all the requisite steps for
^ removing the said name before the Registrar of Companies. Counsel also agrees that in case defendant No.2 will not take the steps within the period granted, the defendants under those circumstances will pay the decreetal amount to the plaintiff within four weeks thereafter and the execution petition will also be revived. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is agreeable to the said suggestion. The present applications are accordingly disposed of.
In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the defendants, the plaintiff is not pressing the execution petition being
Ex.P.No.8/2015. The same is also disposed of.
DECEMBER 22, 2015 r-- singh;