Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS (Comm) No. 856/2024
Vijayant Soni Vs. Sanjay Soni
06.03.2025
Present : Sh. Yogesh Latha, Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. Sunil Singh, Counsel for the defendant.
An application U/o XI Rule 1 (5) r/w Section 151
CPC has been filed by the plaintiff to place on record additional
documents as detailed in the application i.e. Registration
certificate of trademark, Health trade license issued by MCD,
registration certification under FSS Act, 2006 issued by
Department of Food Safety, Online receipt of GST payments,
sales tax deposit and copy of receipt of challans paid for VAT.
It is claimed that after filing the WS by the
defendant, it is necessary to place these documents pertaining to
the dispute on record as the defendant has denied all the relevant
contentions of the plaintiff in the plaint.
The application is replied by the defendant and
opposed mainly on the ground that the plaintiff has no sufficient
reason as to why these documents were not filed at the initial
stage alongwith the plaint despite these documents being within
the control and possession of the plaintiff. The defendant further
denied that these documents are necessary for disposal of the
case and filed in response to the written statement.
I have considered the submissions alongwith record.
I have also gone through the relevant provision U/o XI in the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding disclosure and discovery
of document.
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent
injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off and
rendition of accounts, being trading in the name of “Shri Banke
-- 1 of 2 --
Bihari Samosa Wale”. The plaintiff claimed to be proprietor of
the business and the trademark was registered in the name of the
father of the plaintiff. As claimed, the defendant dishonestly and
in the malafide manner adopted the mark of the plaintiff.
The defendant in the WS denied all the submissions
made in the plaint alongwith the plaintiff mark Shri Banke Bihari
Samose Wale belongs to the family business of Late Sh. Nihal
Chand Soni and is a hereditary mark. The defendant further
denied the sole right of the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint.
These documents, which are desired to be filed by
the plaintiff by way of this application, appear to be relevant and
necessary documents particularly in view of the refusal by the
defendant in the WS about their recognition and claim of the
plaintiff. These documents appear to be filed in response to the
WS of the defendant and support its contention to the plaint. The
documents appear to be relevant for disposal of the claim in
regard to infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff and also
appears to be filed in response to the written statement filed by
defendant and accordingly, be taken on record. Application is
disposed off accordingly.
As observed issues in this case are already framed
on 20.12.2024. Let the evidence be recorded by the parties
through Ld. LC pursuant to the order dated 20.12.2024 and report
be filed.
Put up for final arguments on 07.04.2025.
(Gorakh Nath Pandey)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-08
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
06.03.2025
-- 2 of 2 --