Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS(Comm) No.1127/2024
M/s. Nonand Rai Bholanath
vs.
M/s. Shri Krishna Masala Co.
27.11.2024
Present : Mr. M. K. Miglani, ld counsel for plaintiff.
Mr. Atul Kumar Sharma, ld counsel for defendant.
ORDER(Oral):-
1. Heard. Perused the record.
2. There are two pending applications filed on behalf of the
plaintiff, one u/s.12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
seeking exemption for pre-instituton mediation before filing of
the suit and the other is u/O.XI Rule 1(4) seeking leave of the
court to file additional documents on account of urgent filing.
3. Reply to either of the application has not been filed by the
defendant.
4. Court has also heard the arguments on the aforesaid two
applications and perused the entire record.
5. The plaintiff has filed the instant IPR suit for perpetual
injunction seeking a restraint on the defendant from infringing its
registered trademark “Nav Bahar”, passing off, dilution, damages
and rendition of accounts in respect of their registered trademark.
6. Along with the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application
u/O.XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking ad interim injunction
against the defendant. The provision of Section 12A being
mandatory, is no more res integra as decided by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M/s. Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd & Ors. vs.
...2/p..
-- 1 of 4 --
/ 2 /
Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 2022 Live Law (SC) 678;
decided on 17.08.2022. Explaining the same and after taking into
account various other judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Delhi in Yamini Manohar vs. TKD Keerthi, Special leave
petition(Civil) Diary no.32275/2023; decided on 13.10.2023,
has laid down that in cases where the plaintiff contemplates an
urgent relief and the court after examination of plaint, documents
and material on record is satisfied that such an urgent relief can
be contemplated by the plaintiff, the exemption u/s.12A of the act
can be granted. The court is satisfied on the basis of nature of the
suit, the averrments made in the plaint and the documents shown
seeking prayer of restraint that the claim of the plaintiff being a
Proprietor of registered trademark of the same by the defendant.
The relief prayed is well within the frame of the suit raising a
contemplation for urgent relief making out a case for exemption
u/s.12 A of the Act. The application is accordingly allowed. The
plaintiff is allowed to institute the suit without resorting to pre-
institution mediation.
7. In so far as the other application is concerned, Ld
counsel Mr. Miglani fairly submits that the application was filed
in anticipation of the fact that the defendant shall be filing its
Written Statement and the plaintiff will have to file whatever
rebuttal documents which he had in its power, possession, control
and custody. He states that since the Written Statement has not
...3/p..
-- 2 of 4 --
/ 3 /
been filed so far, the application be treated as premature as he
does not want to file any such document at this stage. The
applicable is accordingly disposed of as premature and infratuous.
8. Put up for arguments on interim application at 12.00
Noon.
(Mukesh Kumar Gupta)
District Judge (Commercial Court) -07
Central District, THC, Delhi/27.11.2024	Central District, THC, Delhi/27.11.2024‘‘rk’	rk’
At 12.30 PM
Present: Shri M.K. Miglani, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Shri Atul Kumar Sharma and Ms. Kritika Mitra,
Ld. Counsels for the defendant.
Vakatlanama on behalf of defendant filed. The same is
taken on record.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant states that defendant shall
not use the trade mark Nav Bahar or any other trademark deceptively
similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark Nau Bahar in future for
its spices and he is ready to give the statement on behalf of defendant
to this effect in the court. Statement of Ld. Counsel to this effect is
recorded separately.
Ld. Counsel for defendant prays for one week time to
file Written Statement as the defendant is not well. Let him file WS
within one week from today.
Keeping in view of the statement, Ld. Counsel for the
parties state that they shall explore the possibility of settlement of the
matter amicably.
At this stage, arguments on interim/injunction application
...4/p..
-- 3 of 4 --
/ 4 /
u/o XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC heard.
Put up for orders on 07.12.2024 and for recording of
settlement on 21.12.2024.
(Mukesh Kumar Gupta)
District Judge(Commercial Court)-07
Central/Tis Hazari Courts/27.11.2024 (PK)
-- 4 of 4 --