Interim Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLND010085492024
CS (COMM.)/870/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
HARSH THUKRAL
TRADING AS M/S. THUKRAL SONS
5160, LAHORI GATE
DELHI-110006.
ALSO AT:
1687, OUTRAM LINES, KINGSWAY CAMP
DELHI-110009
… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. SH. KRISHAN LAL THUKRAL
TRADING AS M/S. KAMAL STORE
4048 LAHORI GATE, NAYA BAZAR BACKSIDE
DELHI-110006
ALSO AT:
K NO. 139/104, GALI NO. 8,
SIRASPUR, DELHI-110042.
2. SH. KAMAL THUKRAL
TRADING AS M/S. THUKRAL ENTERPRISES
4048/1, LAHORI GATE, NAYA BAZAR
DELHI – 110006
3. UDIT THUKRAL
TRADING AS M/S. THUKRAL IMPEX
4048/1, LAHORI GATE, NAYA BAZAR
DELHI – 110006
4. MR. O. P. GUPTA,
M/S. VIMAL STORE,
14, CC, NEAR PVR CINEMA, NARAINA,
NEW DELHI-110028.
… DEFENDANTS
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 1 of 22
-- 1 of 22 --
ORDER
1 Vide this common order, I shall decide two applications
i.e. one under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with
S. 151 CPC seeking an
ex parte ad interim injunction
against the defendants and another application under Order
XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with S. 151 CPC seeking an
ex
parte order for appointment of Local Commissioner to visit
and search the premises of defendants, filed on behalf
of the plaintiff.
2 The facts relevant for the disposal of aforesaid two
applications are that the plaintiff, who is stated to be
proprietor of proprietorship concern namely M/s. Thukral
Sons, got instituted the present suit for permanent
injunction for restraining violation of trademark, passing
off, dilution, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up
etc. against the defendants, The case of the plaintiff, as set
out in the plaint, in nutshell is as under:-
2.1 The plaintiff is engaged in the trade and business of
brooms since 1957 through his predecessors and is
manufacturing and marketing of broom, duster and
wiper, articles for cleaning purposes, included in
class 21 since 1983 through himself [
hereinafter
referred to ‘said goods and business’].
2.2 The plaintiff through his predecessor has adopted
the trade name THUKRAL in 1957 and even
thereafter, after closure of the business of M/s.
Thukral Store in 1983. It is averred that prior to
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 2 of 22
-- 2 of 22 --
1983, there was no such branding but the said goods
used to have been sold without any brand but under
the trade name. The concept of branding came
subsequently and the plaintiff started using the same
since 1983. The plaintiff has continued the same
business in the name and style of M/s. THUKRAL
SONS since 1983 and has been using the trademark
THUKRAL and trade name THUKRAL SONS
[
hereinafter referred to as ‘said trade mark/ trade
name’] continuously since then in respect of said
goods and business. The plaintiff has successfully
emerged as a leading and well-known brand/name
for the abovementioned goods.
2.3 It is claimed that said trade mark/name has been
coined, conceived and adopted by the plaintiff in the
year 1957 through predecessor and since 1983
through himself and on account of prior adoption,
senior user of the trademark/name THUKRAL /
THUKRAL SONS, the plaintiff stands apart from
those of others. Therefore, the plaintiff has claimed
itself to be proprietor of the said trademark/name in
respect of said goods on account of its prior
adoption and senior, continuous user thereof and has
stated that plaintiff being the originator, owner and
proprietor of the said trademark/tradename is
entitled to the protection.
2.4 The plaintiff has been honestly, bonafidely and in
the course of trade, using its said trade mark/ trade
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 3 of 22
-- 3 of 22 --
name as proprietor thereof continuously,
commercially, openly and to the exclusion of others
and without any interruption or interference from
any corner whatsoever and has built up envious,
enormous and valuable trade, goodwill and
reputation in respect thereof.
2.5 It is averred that the plaintiff has filed trademark
applications for registration of his said trademarks in
class 21, which are pending registration and are
likely to get registered on account of its
distinctiveness in the trade and business and senior
in adoption and prior in user in business in relation
to said goods.Some of the trademarks got abandoned
due to non-prosecution by the attorney of the
plaintiff. The details of applications for registration
of trademarks/trade name are mentioned in Para
no.17 of the plaint, according to which, the said
trade mark is either shown to have been abandoned
or opposed and / or formality check pass.
2.6 It is also stated that the said trademark THUKRAL
is also used by the firms namely M/s. Thukral Sales
which is the proprietorship concern of Mr. Dheeraj
Thukral, son of the Plaintiff and M/s. Kalyani Sales,
the firm, sole proprietor whereof is Anita Thukral,
wife of the plaintiff under oral permission of the
plaintiff.
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 4 of 22
-- 4 of 22 --
2.7 Further, it is averred that the plaintiff has been
continuously promoting its sale of said goods and
business under its said trademark / trade name
through different media and modes such as
advertisement in newspaper, trade magazines,
distribution of trade literatures, trade novelties and
through sales promotional schemes. The hoardings,
flex boards are the other modes of advertisement.
Apart from that, the plaintiff advertises his business
through the websites of B2B portals. The plaintiff
advertises and effects sale of the said goods under
the said trademark/label/name online through his
own website https://thukraljhadu.com and also
through third party online e-commerce portal like
IndiaMart and TradeIndia, etc.
2.8 Further, it is claimed that on account of
its good quality and standards of manufacturing and
untiring efforts in advertising and marketing, the
goods of the plaintiff under the said trade marks/
labels have acquired enviable reputation and
goodwill throughout length and breadth of the
country and the plaintiff has already built up a
handsome and valuable trade thereunder and the
details of year-wise sale/ turn over for period
w.e.f.
1995-96 to 2023-24 have been given in Para no.15
of the plaint, wherein it is shown that the plaintiff
had sales worth Rs.4,08,603.82
Paise for the year
1995-96,which has gradually increased to manifolds
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 5 of 22
-- 5 of 22 --
and was Rs.3,12,58,746.52
Paise in the financial year
2023-2024.
2.9 It is also claimed that the said trademark/ trade name
have already become distinctive indicium of the
plaintiff and its said goods and business thereunder
and the purchasing public, traders and public at
large associate, identify and distinguish the said
trade marks with the plaintiff and the plaintiff’ said
goods and business alone. Further, the plaintiff
spend huge amount of money in advertising and
promotion of its products under the said trade
mark/name, due to which the products of the
plaintiff under the said trade marks/labels enjoy
huge goodwill and reputation in business
community and amongst public in general in India.
The plaintiff has a huge turnover against sale of its
products worldwide. Hence, it is claimed that in
view of the plaintiff’s proprietary rights under
common law in its said trademark/name, and its
goodwill & reputation, the plaintiff has the exclusive
right to the use thereof and nobody can be permitted
to use the same or any other deceptively similar
trademark/ name in any manner whatsoever in
relation to any specification of goods without the
leave and license of the plaintiff.
2.10 It is alleged that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are
engaged in the same nature of business dealing in
identical goods as those of the plaintiff. It is stated
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 6 of 22
-- 6 of 22 --
that to the knowledge available to the plaintiff from
the market sources, the defendant No. 1 namely Sh.
Krishan Lal Thukral has been carrying on business
under trading style M/s. Kamal Store and has
nothing to do with the THUKRAL in the course of
trade and business. Further, the defendant no.2 and 3
claim themselves to be sole proprietors of
proprietorship concerns namely M/s. Thukral
Enterprises and M/s. Thukral Impex respectively.
Defendant No. 4 is engaged in the business of
selling impugned goods, which is manufactured by
the defendant nos. 1, 2 & 3 under the impugned
trademark THUKRAL.
2.11 It is further alleged that the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3
have adopted the trade mark/ name THUKRAL,
THUKRAL ENTERPRISRS, THUKRAL IMPEX
and its variants namely ,
, ,
, ,
, KS THUKRAL CLASSIC,
THUKRAL ULTIMA, THUKRAL XL, THUKRAL
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 7 of 22
-- 7 of 22 --
JUNIOR, THUKRAL JUNIOR in the course of
trade and business of broom, duster and wiper;
articles for cleaning purposes (
herein after referred
to as ‘the impugned goods and business’) and have
started using the same in the course of trade and
business without the leave and license of the
plaintiff.
2.12 It is stated that defendant no.1 is the father of
defendant nos. 2 and 3. Defendant No. 4 is
also engaged in the sale of impugned products
under the impugned brand sourced by defendant
nos.1, 2 and 3.
2.13 The defendants have made a deliberate attempt and
taken undue advantage of the plaintiff’s goodwill
and reputation, by adopting the impugned trademark
which is detrimental to the distinctive character to
the said trademark/name of the plaintiff and also
with a view to reap illegal monetary benefits. The
defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have afforded no plausible
explanation for adopting the identical trademarks
only and the user thereof. Use of similar goods
under identical trademark is against the spirit of
Trade Marks Law.
2.14 It is further alleged that the plaintiff has, in the first
week of July, 2024, become aware of the adoption
and user of the impugned mark/label trademark
THUKRAL and its variants when the defendant no.
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 8 of 22
-- 8 of 22 --
1, through its special Power of Attorney Holder and
defendant no.2 filed an Opposition Petition to the
accepted and advertised trademark of the plaintiff
under Trademark Application no.5329298 in class
21. The opposition is replete with false claims and
contentions. The defendants thereby are claiming
right in the impugned mark without due cause and
explanation. Thereafter, the plaintiff through the
attorney, caused search in the register of the Trade
Marks and found that the defendant no. 1 has
applied for the registration of the impugned mark
THUKRAL and its variants.
2.15 The defendant no.1 filed trademark application for
THUKRAL as is reflecting on the Register of Trade
Marks under application no. 2432586 in class 21
and the same got abandoned. The user claimed
therein by the defendant No. 1 in the application no.
2432586 and in subsequent applications is false.
The defendant no. 1 has filed another application for
the registration of the impugned mark
under application no. 2432588
which is also abandoned. The application for
registration for the trademark under
application no. 2432589 also stands abandoned. The
label filed for registration under
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 9 of 22
-- 9 of 22 --
application no. 2432590 stands abandoned. The
other application filed for registration
under application no. 2432591 stands abandoned.
Audaciously, the defendant no. 1 has also applied
for the trademark application for the registration of
the trademark under application
no. 5247353 in class 21, which is under opposition.
The said defendant has applied and flooded the
Trade Marks Registry with applications
i.e. 5247354
for KS THUKRAL CLASSIC, 5247355 for
THUKRAL ULTIMA, 5247356 for THUKRAL
XL, 5247357 for the trademark THUKRAL
JUNIOR and 6442634 for THUKRAL which are
either pending or opposed.
2.16 The defendant no. 2 has also applied for the
impugned mark THUKRAL for the tea in class 30
under application no.6442634, which is also
invalidly registered and one in class 35 under
application no. 3634726 for different goods and
services It verily proves that the defendants have
never been in the business of goods falling in class
21 but in goods falling in class 30 and 29 and if any
for brooms that is raw and without any branding.
The defendants have no right to adopt and use
THUKRAL in the course of trade and business. The
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 10 of 22
-- 10 of 22 --
plaintiff has recently come to know that the
defendant no. 1 has filed a suit being CS (COMM)
902 of 2022 against one Mr. Suresh Sharma before
Commercial Court (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi,
malafidely claiming right in THUKRAL, which is
false and illegal.
2.17 Thus, it is alleged that the defendants have
dishonestly and malafidely adopted impugned mark/
trade name THUKRAL, THUKRAL
ENTERPRISRS, THUKRAL IMPEX and its
variants namely ,
, ,
, , KS THUKRAL
CLASSIC, THUKRAL ULTIMA, THUKRAL XL,
THUKRAL JUNIOR, THUKRAL JUNIOR, which
are identical and /or deceptively and confusingly
similar to the trademark/ trade name THUKRAL /
THUKRAL SONS of the plaintiff, thereby causing
confusion and deception amongst the unwary
purchasing public and traders by making them
believe that the origin of those goods is that of the
plaintiff. It is further averred that by doing so, the
defendants are not only damaging the reputation and
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 11 of 22
-- 11 of 22 --
goodwill of the plaintiff by passing off their
substandard products as that of the plaintiff but are
also causing financial loss to the plaintiff by reaping
unfair advantage of the repute and distinctive
character of the said trademarks/labels of the
plaintiff.
3 On these grounds, by way of application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the plaintiff has, thus, sought an
ex parte ad interim injunction thereby restraining the
defendants and all acting on their behalf from passing of
their impugned goods and business using impugned mark
THUKRAL, THUKRAL ENTERPRISRS, THUKRAL
IMPEX and its variants namely ,
, ,
, , KS THUKRAL
CLASSIC, THUKRAL ULTIMA, THUKRAL XL,
THUKRAL JUNIOR, THUKRAL JUNIOR or any other
mark, which is/are identical and /or deceptively and
confusingly similar to registered trademark/ name
THUKRAL / THUKRAL SONS of the plaintiff.
4 I have already heard Sh. Dharmendra K. Yadav Advocate,
for the plaintiff and have duly considered the submissions
made by him. I have also gone through the material
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 12 of 22
-- 12 of 22 --
available on record including the plaint and the documents
relied upon by the plaintiff. I have also gone through the
photographs/comparative analysis of the plaintiff's and
defendants’ trademarks, which are annexed with the plaint.
PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS:
5 It is submitted by Ld. Counsel of plaintiff that the plaintiff
through its predecessors is honest,
bona fide and prior
adopter and user of the said trade mark / trade name
THUKRAL/ THUKRAL SONS. It is also contended that
the plaintiff has been using the said trade mark/ trade name
through its predecessor since 1957 and through himself
since 1983 continuously, openly, commercially during the
course of trade. Thus, being prior adopter / user of said
trade mark/ trade name, the plaintiff is entitled to
protection. Hence, it is prayed that an
ex parte ad interim
injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendants restraining them from using the said
impugned trade marks/ labels/ word marks.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
6 Before adverting to the present case, it is relevant here to
note down certain principles of law. The broad principle
on which the foundation of the right to restrain the user of
a similar name, was enunciated in
“British Vacuum
Cleaner Co. Ltd. Vs. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. Ltd.”
(1907) 2 Ch. 312 referred to and relied upon in
“Office
Cleaning Services Limited Vs. Weiminster Office” as
under:
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 13 of 22
-- 13 of 22 --
“The foundation of the right to restrain the user of a
similar name is the principle that no one is entitled to
represent his business or goods as being the business or
goods of another by whatever means that result may be
achieved and it makes no difference whether the
representation be intentional or otherwise; but a distinction
has been and must always be drawn between cases in
which the trade name or the part of it in question consists
of word or words complained of, is or are of the character
of a fancy word or words and primarily have no relation to
such business or article but only to the person carrying on
the business or dealing in the article”.
7 It was in view of this principle that their Lordships held
that “if it can be established that the descriptive word or
words has or have acquired among the public, or that class
of the public likely to deal with the business or goods in
question, a subsidiary or secondary meaning denoting or
connoting the business or the origin of the article, the
person claiming to restrain the user of that word or those
words, can obtain the relief he seeks.
8 The word “
mark” has been denied in the Trade Marks Act,
1999 as under:-
“2. Definition and interpretation - (1) In this Act, unless
the context otherwise requires:
(m) “mark” includes, a device, brand, heading, label,
ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of
goods, packaging or combination of colours or any
combination thereof”.
9 The word ‘
trade mark’ has been defined in S. 2 (zb) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 as a mark capable of being
represented graphically and which is capable of
distinguishing the goods or services of one person from
those of others and may include shape of goods, their
packaging and combination of colours; and a registered
trade mark or a mark used in relation to goods or services
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 14 of 22
-- 14 of 22 --
for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a
connection in the course of trade between the goods or
services, as the case may be, and some person having the
right as proprietor to use the mark; and if any mark is used
in relation to other provision of this Act, a mark used or
proposed to be used in relation to goods or services for the
purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in
the course of trade between the goods or services, as the
case may be, and some person having the right, either as
proprietor or by way of permitted user, to use the mark
whether with or without any indication of the identity of
that person, and includes a certification trade mark or
collective mark.
10 Now coming back to the case in hand.
JURISDICTION:
11 Firstly, as regards jurisdiction of this Court, it is submitted
by Ld. Counsel of the defendants that the defendants are
carrying out trade and business by selling and advertising
their impugned goods/products under the impugned trademark
within/from the jurisdiction of this Court particularly within
New Delhi District, Delhi. Further, the defendant nos. 1 to 3
are carrying on business through defendant No.4, which is
situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. Further, the
defendants are also carrying on trade and business and are
promoting their sale through e-commerce platforms third
party online portal namely Justdial. Thus, it is stated that the
trade and business of the defendants are being carried out all
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 15 of 22
-- 15 of 22 --
over India including in the areas of Naraina, Sagarpur, Mandir
Marg Inderpuri, which fall within the territorial jurisdiction
of New Delhi District, New Delhi.
12 Further, the said goods of the plaintiff are also sold, displayed
and advertised through his website https://thukraljhadu.com/
and also through third party online e-commerce portal like
Justdial, IndiaMart and TradeIndia etc. It is stated that the
said e-commerce website is interactive in nature and is
freely accessible throughout the length and breadth of the
Country and goods can also be sold, displayed and
purchased through said websites, goods can be delivered to
any place including within territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. Thus, it is contended that the acts of Passing Off
and infringement of trademark are being carried out within
the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, part of cause of
action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.
13 In view of above, it is argued that the plaintiff and defendants,
both carries on trade and business within the jurisdiction of
this Court. Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to try and
adjudicate the suit under Section 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
14 In order to buttress the aforesaid submissions, Counsel of
plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments of Hon’ble
Division Bench of our own High Court:-
14.1
“RSPL Limited v. Mukesh Sharma & Anr” reported as
2016 (68) PTC 178 [Del] [DB];
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 16 of 22
-- 16 of 22 --
14.2 “
V Guard Industries Ltd. v. Sukan Raj Jain & Anr.”
reported as 2021 (87) PTC 333 [Del]
14.3 "
Shree Girirajji And Co. v. Gagan Pagrani Proprietor
of Plastica Industries" bearing FAO (COMM) 47/2024,
CAV 124/2024 CM APPL. 15789/2024 CM APPL.
15790/2024 decided on 14-03-2024.
15 In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
plaintiff and the law laid down in above noted judgments, the
Court is of the
prima facie view that this Court has got
territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit.
EX PARTE INJUNCTION
16 Now coming to
ex parte injunction. The grounds of
ex parte
injunction is governed by the Order XXXIX CPC. The Order
XXXIX Rule 3 reads as under:-
3. Before granting injunction, Court to direct notice to
opposite party. - The Court shall in all cases, except
where it appears that the object of granting the
injunction would be defeated by the delay, before
granting an injunction, direct notice of the application
for the same to be given to opposite party.
17 The Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled
Shiv Kumar Chadha v.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1993 SCC (3) 161 held that
ex parte injunction without notice to other party should be
sparingly done. Therefore, ordinarily rule is issuance of notice
to opposite party before granting injunction.
18 Admittedly, trade mark / trade name THUKRAL/ THUKRAL
SONS are not registered in favour of the plaintiff as on date.
The plaintiff has claimed to be prior / senior adopter since
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 17 of 22
-- 17 of 22 --
1957 through his predecessor and through himself since,
1983. The plaintiff has claimed that he has made various
applications for registration of said trade mark/ trade name,
whereas it is himself the case of the plaintiff that same are
either abandoned and/or is/are at the stage of Formality Check
Pass. Moreover, the defendant no.2 has filed opposition to the
advertised trade mark of the plaintiff under trade mark
application no. 5329298 in class 21 and defendant no.1 is
stated to have filed a commercial suit bearing CS (COMM)
902/2022 against one Mr. Suresh Sharma before Commercial
Court (West), THC, Delhi, allegedly claiming his right in
impugned trade mark THUKRAL, although same is claimed
to have been on the basis of false averments.
19 Therefore in the totality of the facts and circumstances and in
the interest of justice, the Court is of the considered opinion
that at this stage, the plaintiff is not entitled to
ex parte ad
interim injunction. However, short notice of the application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 read with S. 151 CPC is
hereby directed to be issued to the defendants for next date.
Accordingly, the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 &
2 read with S. 151 CPC with respect to
ex parte prayer stands
disposed off.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXVI RULE 9
20 As regards the application for appointment of local
commissioner, it is submitted that in order to preserve the
subject matter of the suit, Local Commissioner be
appointed and directed to visit the premises of the
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 18 of 22
-- 18 of 22 --
defendant no.1 with a view to ascertain the nature and
extent of operation being run by the defendants to find out
the violation and infringement of rights in the said trade
mark/ trade name. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, considering the submissions
made at Bar and perusal of record clearly shows that
appointment of Local Commissioner is indispensable in
this case. Consequently, Sh. Shatrughan Singh, Advocate,
Enrl. No.D-255/92, mobile No.9811796297 is appointed as
Local Commissioner to visit the premises of defendant
no.1 situated at K No. 139/104, Gali No. 8, Siraspur,
Delhi-110042, in terms of prayed made in the application
under consideration, with the following directions:-
20.1 The Local Commissioner shall make an inventory
and take into custody all the impugned goods,
packaging material and all other material bearing
impugned trade mark/ trade name THUKRAL,
THUKRAL ENTERPRISRS, THUKRAL IMPEX
and its variants namely ,
, ,
, , KS THUKRAL
CLASSIC, THUKRAL ULTIMA, THUKRAL XL,
THUKRAL JUNIOR, THUKRAL JUNIOR or any
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 19 of 22
-- 19 of 22 --
mark/ word mark in any form and manner, which is
identical and /or phonetically, deceptively and
confusingly similar to registered trademark/ trade
name THUKRAL / THUKRAL SONS of the
plaintiff and/or any other equipment present at the
premises of the said defendant used for
manufacturing the infringing goods. However, he
shall return the seized/ infringed goods to the said
defendant or its authorized representative(s) on
superdari, upon their furnishing an undertaking that
they will produce the goods so seized as and when
called upon to do so by this Court.
20.2 The Local Commissioner shall also seize and sign
all books of accounts, ledgers, and cash registers,
stock registers, invoices, day book etc. of the said
defendant and seal them after signing them and after
making list of the same, hand over the same to the
said defendant against receipt and undertaking of
producing it in Court as and when so directed by
the Court.
20.3 Local Commissioner shall visit other premises at the
identification of the plaintiff where the alleged
activities are being carried on by or on behalf of the
said defendant or where the impugned goods and/or
materials bearing the impugned trademark are
expected to be found.
20.4 The Officer In-charge of the Police Station having
the local jurisdiction over the place where the
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 20 of 22
-- 20 of 22 --
premises of the said defendant are situated, is
directed to render all necessary assistance as well as
security to the Local Commissioner in carrying out
the above directions.
20.5 The Local Commissioner shall also take
photographs of the premises of the said defendant as
aforesaid, as well as of the infringed material found
at the sites.
20.6 If on the date of visit the premises are found locked,
Local Commissioner shall break open the same in
the presence of police officials of the concerned
Police Station after taking the photographs thereof
and shall proceed to execute the commission after
affixing the copy of summons and complete set of
papers on the main gate of the premises. It is made
clear that the Local Commissioner shall not do so
after sunset and before the sunrise and shall also
maintain decency while breaking open the locks to
recover the infringing material.
20.7 The fee of the Local Commissioner shall be payable
by plaintiff and is tentatively fixed at Rs.1,25,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand only)
apart from all other out-of-packet expenses. The fee
shall be paid in advance before the visit to the
premises of the aforesaid defendant and that too
without deducting TDS thereof.
20.8 The Local Commissioner shall visit the aforesaid
premises of the said defendant within 15 days from
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 21 of 22
-- 21 of 22 --
the date of receipt of this order by him and shall file
his report before this Court within one week of the
visit to the place thereafter.
21 Accordingly application u/o XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with
Order XXXIX rule 7 CPC read with S.151 CPC is allowed
and stands disposed off.
22 Dasti order be given to counsel for the plaintiff and to
Local Commissioner for reference and compliance.
Announced in the open court
On 25th day of October, 2024
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (Comm.)/870/2024 Page 22 of 22
-- 22 of 22 --