THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY L.P VS ALTAF PASHA

$~20

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CS(OS) 645/2015 & I.A.Nos.4941/2015, 3922/2017, 3924/2017

THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY L.P			..... Plaintiff
	Through	Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman with
		Mr.Vinay Kumar Shukla and Mr.Som
		Nath De, Advocates.
	versus
ALTAF PASHA			..... Defendant
	Through	Mr.Mohsin Israily with Mr.M.Saif
		Islam Israily, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
	O R D E R
%	29.01.2018

The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts etc.

On 28^th March, 2017, the present suit was referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.

Mediation in the present case has been successful through the efforts of Mr.Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Advocate-Mediator.

A Settlement Agreement has been executed between the parties on 15^th November, 2017.

It                                                                                                                 is  pertinent        to         mention          that                                                                                                                   the           Supreme         Court  in                                                                                                                                                          Afcons

Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24 while dealing with Section 89 of the CPC observed that the settlement agreement will have to be placed before the Court for recording it and in disposing of the suit in its terms, the Court should apply the principle of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC and make a decree in terms of the

settlement in regard to the subject matter of the suit, to make such settlement effective.

This Court is satisfied that the compromise between the parties contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. The compromise contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement is lawful and therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in decreeing the present suit in terms of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement.

Consequently, present suit is decreed in terms of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 15^th November, 2017 executed between the parties, which is marked as Ex.C-1. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet in terms thereof.

With the aforesaid observations, present suit and all pending applications stand disposed of.

List the matter for compliance on 14^th May, 2018.

MANMOHAN, J

JANUARY 29, 2018

KA

SANDHYA KUMARI PROPRIETRESS M/S SHIVANI TRADERS VS M/S GUPTA & SONS AND ANR

$~4 & 5

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   FAO 56/2017, CM APPL. 4279-80/2017

SANDHYA KUMARI PROPRIETRESS M/S SHIVANI TRADERS

..... Appellant

Through:  Mr.  S.K.  Bansal,  Mr.  Ajay  Amitabh

Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Kapil Kumar

Giri, Advs.

versus

M/S GUPTA & SONS AND ANR                                             ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Indu Kaur, Advocate.

+                   FAO 57/2017, CM APPL. 4288-89/2017

SANDHYA KUMARI PROPRIETRESS M/S SHIVANI TRADERS

..... Appellant

Through:  Mr.  S.K.  Bansal,  Mr.  Ajay  Amitabh

Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Kapil Kumar

Giri, Advs.

versus

M/S SAKSHI FOOD

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Indu Kaur, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R

%                                         16.01.2018

Mr. Bansal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

impugned order dated 08.11.2016 passed by District Judge, Patiala House

Court, New Delhi has erred insofar as, it did not take into account the fact that the appellant has extensively used the trademark “RINGO” alongwith its elaborate design for the packaging and sale of corn puffs since 2011. Its application for registration of the mark made on 30.09.2013 remains pending. He submits that on 15.10.2014, an application for copyright of the artistic work was made to which an NOC was granted on 29.06.2015, and lately the copyright in the artistic work has been registered whereas the respondent applied for registration of ‘ASHOK RING” in the same class of goods as late as on 26.04.2016.

2.                 It is the appellant’s case that they have used the aforesaid trade dress/artistic work for the packaging of corn puffs extensively in its area of sale i.e. in Uttar Pradesh and National Capital Territory of Delhi. Their sales turnover for the year 2013-14 was Rs.10,15,756/- and for the year 2014-15 it was Rs.11,65,000/-. Details of advertisement expenses for the product, done through pamphlets and stickers, are not readily available. He submits that, the fact that sale of about Rs.20 lacs was effected in just two years – from 2013 to 2015 – itself shows that the product was extensively consumed and was in wide circulation. It has attained recognition in favour of the appellant. He further submits that “RINGO” has been registered in India in the name of Sh. Rajkumar Motandas Ahuja bearing TM No.58 of 2016. He seeks protection against use of the identical label by the respondent. The packaging labels used by the appellant and the respondent appear on page Nos. 50 and 54 of the paper-book, respectively. They are reproduced hereunder:

APPELLANT’S LABEL                                               RESPONDENT’S LABEL

3.                 The two trade labels are almost identical. The respondent’s label appear to be the copy of the artistic work and label of the appellant, its colour, style, fonts, etc. all are nearly identical. It can be termed as an imitation of the appellant’s label. The respondent’s goods can easily be passed off as that of the appellant. Each packet is priced at Re. 1. The sale of the said product is as Rs.21,80,756/- between 2013 and 2015. As a corollary as many as 21,80,756 such packets must have been consumed by or brought into the stream of commerce for the target group i.e. school going children or people belonging to weaker sections of the society. It can safely be concluded that the said label would have acquired an element of recognition and recall value.

4.                 The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is prior user of the trademark “ASHOK RING” and has now applied for registration of the same on 26.04.2016. The respondent has not been able to

show any sale of goods earlier in time or from the period 2013 to 2015.

5.                 Although the respondent was granted time to adduce relevant documents, no such documents are on record. The learned counsel for the respondent states that she has filed the relevant documents and would pursue with the Registry to have the same brought on record. She also seeks time to bring on record, proof of prior and extensive use of the respondent’s said mark, alongwith label and logos, as may be. Advance copy of the said documents, as may be filed by the respondent, shall be served upon the appellant.

6.                 At her request, renotify on 31.01.2018.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

JANUARY 16, 2018/acm

VEE EXCEL DURGS and PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD Vs HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI   CS(OS) 1851/2008   VEE EXCEL DURGS and PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD ..... Plaintiff   Through : Mr. Anshuj Dhingra, Adv. versus   HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LTD ..... Defendant   Through : None.   CORAM:    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI    O R D E R    05.09.2008   I.A.No.10721/2008 (exemption)   Subject to the plaintiff filing the original documents of the   photocopies placed on the record within four weeks, the application is allowed   and disposed of.   CS(OS) 1851/2008   The plaint be registered as a suit. Issue summons to the defendant, on   filing of process fee by the plaintiff within one week, by Regd. AD post,   through ordinary process as also by courier, returnable on 17th December, 2008   before the Joint Registrar for completion of service as also pleadings.   I.A.No.10920/2008 (u/O 39 R-1 and 2 of CPC)   Notice for the date fixed.   The plaintiff has filed the accompanying suit for injunction, retraining   infringement of copyright and trademark, etc., in respect of its pharmaceutical   product ?VEGA ASIA?, in which it enjoys registered trademark and the registered   copyright.   It is a case of the plaintiff that it is engaged in the business of   research, production, marketing and export of various pharmaceutical and   medicinal products and preparations. The present suit is confined to the claim   of the plaintiff in respect of its pharmaceutical product, ?VEGA ASIA? and the   artistic works known as ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE PACKAGING?. Counsel for   the plaintiff states that the plaintiff holds a valid and subsisting drug   licence for manufacture and sale of the drug ?VEGA ASIA?. The counsel for the   plaintiff further states that the plaintiff is also holder of a valid Import and   Export Code for exporting the drug ?VEGA ASIA?, which is meant for erectile   dysfunction disorders in the malehuman beings.   He submits that the mark ?VEGA ASIA? is a coined word with no descriptive   meaning and that it is a combination of two words, ?VEGA? and ?ASIA?. The   plaintiff is stated to have designed and created various artistic works for the   packaging of the aforesaid medicinal product and the same has been got   registered not only under the Copyright Act, but the trade name ?VEGA ASIA? has   also been registered in favour of the plaintiff with the Trademark Registry.   Counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant is engaged in the   business of medicinal and pharmaceutical product and has started misusing the   intellectual property of the plaintiff in the aforesaid registered copyright and   trademark by producing and exporting the same product either in identical or the   deceptively similar packaging or with identical and deceptively similar names or   with a combination of both, so as to exploit goodwill and efforts of the   plaintiff company. It is stated that the defendant has started exporting   identical products as that of the plaintiff under ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE   PACKAGING? bearing titles ?VEGA? and ?VEGA 100? to various countries outside   India.   He submits that a perusal of the products shows the manner in which the   defendant is using the product and protected artistic work of the plaintiff and   also the packaging used by the plaintiff resulting in infringement of the   trademark and copyright of the plaintiff. He draws the attention of the Court   to paras 18 and 20 of the plaint, wherein the plaintiff has set out a   comparative chart showing the similarities between the plaintiff?s product and   the defendant?s infringing product. In view of the above, counsel for the   plaintiff states that the plaintiff is suffering immense loss of business and   goodwill on account of the illegal activities of the defendant and is entitled   to grant of an interim injunction.   Having perused the averments made in the plaint as also the documents   placed on the record, particularly, copies of the product of the plaintiff and   that of the defendant, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is   entitled to grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant.   Accordingly, till further orders, the defendant, its directors, agents,   representatives and assigns are restrained from using the name, ?VEGA ASIA?,   ?VEGA? or any other mark similar to that of the plaintiff?s and also from using   packaging the known as ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE PACKAGING? or any other   artistic work, design, outlay, colour scheme and get up which is deceptively   similar to that of the plaintiff?s packaging duly registered in its favour.   Provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure be   complied with within one week.   Dasti.   HIMA KOHLI,J   SEPTEMBER 05, 2008   sk/KA   14 ___________________________________________________________________________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI   06.01.2009 35#   Present: None for the plaintiff.   Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Pratibha M. Singh,   Mr. Alankar Kirpekar and Ms. Archana Sachdeva, Advs. for the   defendant.    CS (OS) No.1851/2008   The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining   infringement of Copyright, infringement of trademark, rendition of accounts,   damages, delivery up etc. The said suit along with the interim application came   up for hearing on 05.09.2008 when in the main suit the summons were issued for   17.09.2008 and in the interim application being IA No.10720/2008 the notice was   fixed for the same day. Ad interim injunction was also issued which reads as   under:-   ?Accordingly, till further orders, the defendant, its directors, agents,   representatives and assigns are restrained from using the name, ?VEGA ASIA?,   ?VEGA? or any other mark similar to that of the plaintiff?s and also from using   packaging the known as ?ROCKET PACKAGING? and ?BLUE PACKAGING? or any other   artistic work, design, outlay, colour scheme   -2-   and get up which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff?s packaging   duly registered in its favour.?   The defendant filed the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being IA   No.11669/2008 which was listed before the Court on 22.09.2008 when notice was   issued to the non-applicant which was accepted and the defendant was directed to   file the reply within four weeks with advance copy to the other side and the   matter was again listed before the Joint Registrar on 17.12.2008.   Another application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC being IA No.14352/2008 for   vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 5.9.2008 was filed. The said   application was disposed of and due to the urgency shown by the defendant the   main application being IA No.10720/2008 and 11669/2008 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC and   u/O 39 R 4 CPC) were listed for 09.02.2009.   The defendant also challenged the ex-parte ad-interim order dated   05.09.2008 before the Division Bench by filing of an appeal under Order 43 Rule   1 CPC being FAO (OS) No.491/2008. The said appeal was disposed of with the   direction that the hearing of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and   another pending application shall be heard by the Single Judge   -3-   on 06.01.2009. The order passed by the Division Bench on 19.12.2008 is   reproduced hereunder:-   ?Mr. Nayar, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, strongly presses   that the interim injunction granted by learned Single Judge should be vacated   especially on the ruling of this Court in FAO (OS) 331/2007, decided on 26th   November, 2008 titled Ram Krishan and Sons Charitable Trust Ltd ?vs- IILM   Business School, where we had been so persuaded keeping in perspective   suppression of material facts.   Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that a Reply to the   Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC)   shall be filed within three days from today, with an advance copy to learned   counsel for the Appellant. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits   that this Appeal may be disposed of with the observation that all pending   applications shall now be listed before the learned Single Judge on 6th January,   2009 for hearing and that Respondent/ Plaintiff herein in CS (OS) No.1851/2008   shall not seek any adjournment on that date.   In view of the statement of learned counsel for the Respondent. Reply to   the Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC be filed within three days,   with an advance copy to the Appellant who may file   -4-   Rejoinder within three days thereafter. All pending applications be now listed   for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 6th January, 2009. No   adjournment shall be granted by learned Single Judge on the asking or on the   default of the plaintiff.   In these terms, the Appeal stands disposed of. Pending applications also   stand disposed of. Dasti.?   Today when the matter was circulated and shown in the typed   supplementary list no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned   counsel for the defendant Ms. Pratibha M. Singh has informed the Court that the   learned counsel for the plaintiff is aware about the fixing of the matter before   this Court and she has also informed the other side that the matter would be   taken up at 2.00 pm.   When the matter was taken up at 2:00 PM still no one appeared on behalf   of the plaintiff and the same was again put up at 3:00 PM. In the meanwhile   another communication was given to the learned counsel of the plaintiff on phone   that the matter will be taken up at 3:00PM but no one appeared on behalf of the   plaintiff when the matter was called up.   I have gone through the pleadings, documents and averment of the   application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC r/w 151 CPC for vacation of the ex parte   ad interim order the defendant has raised many grounds for vacation of   -5-   the ex parte ad interim injunction and has referred various paragraphs of the   written statement in which it has been stated that the plaintiff is guilty of   suppression of material facts as the plaintiff has not made the full disclosure   at the time of filing of the suit and obtaining the ex parte orders and the   plaintiff has also not come before this Court with clean hands.   One of the arguments of the defendant is that the defendant filed a suit   bearing Suit No.2426/2008 against one manufacturer M/s. Saviour Biotech Pvt.   Ltd. before the Bombay High Court seeking to restrain it from acts of   infringement of its trademark ?VEGA?. Vide order dated 07.08.2008 the ex parte   ad interim injunction was granted by the Bombay High Court against the said   manufacturer i.e. Saviour Biotech Pvt. Ltd. The Court Receiver was also   appointed to take possession of the infringed goods and as per the compliance   huge material was taken into possession under the trademark ?VEGA? by the Court   Receiver. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel for the defendant that the   plaintiff in the present case is the licensor of the said defendant i.e. Saviour   Biotech Pvt. Ltd. who was manufacturing the products on behalf of the present   plaintiff. It is also mentioned that the defendant?s application for   impleadment of the present plaintiff in the suit filed by the defendant in the   Bombay High Court is also pending.   -6-   The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that plaintiff himself   has filed the copy of the agreement between the plaintiff herein and M/s.   Saviour Biotech Pvt. Ltd. (defendant in suit no.2426/2008 pending in Bombay High   Court) and therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff has not disclosed the said   vital fact in the plaint about the earlier pendency of the suit filed by the   defendant in the Bombay High Court and in the injunction application, therefore,   the interim order is not sustainable. After hearing counsel for the defendant   and having gone through the pleading, it appears that the plaintiff has failed   to disclose the said fact in the plaint and in the interim application as   alleged by the defendant in its application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.   Considering the overall fact and circumstances of the matter, I feel that   till the next date of hearing i.e. 9th February, 2009 when the two applications   being IA No.10720/2008 and IA No.11669/2008 are listed for hearing, interim   order dated 5th September, 2008 granted in favour of the plaintiff is suspended.    January 06, 2009 MANMOHAN SINGH, J.   nn __________________________________________________________________________  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI   FAO(OS) 172/2009 and CM Nos. 6521/2009, 6522/2009 and 6523/2009   M/S VEE EXCEL DRUGS and PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD .... Appellant   Through: Mr.S.K.Bansal and Mr. Tarun Singla, Advocates. Versus   M/S HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LIMITED ..... Respondents   Through : Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Pratibha M. Singh   and Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Advocates.   CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA    O R D E R    06.05.2009   Learned counsel for the appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal as he   wants to file an application for amendment.   The appeal along with all pending applications stand dismissed as   withdrawn.   MUKUL MUDGAL,J ___________________________________________________________________________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI   (15)   CS(OS) 1851/2008   VEE EXCEL DRUGS and   PHARMACEUTICALS(P) LTD. ..... Plaintiff   Through Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. versus   HAB PHARMACEUTICALS and RESEARCH LTD. ..... Defendant   Through Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Adv.   CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH    O R D E R    12.10.2009   I.A. No. 10180/2009 (Order 6 Rule 17)   No reply to this application has been filed. In view of the order dated   6th May, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of this court in FAO(OS) No. 172/2009   and averment made in the application, this application is allowed. The   amended plaint is taken on record. IA stands disposed of.   I.A. No. 10181/2009 (Order 39 Rule 1 and 2)   No reply has been filed. Last opportunity is granted to the defendant to   file reply within two weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed by   the plaintiff within two weeks thereafter.   List on 22nd January, 2010.   CS(OS) 1851/2008   The amended written statement be filed by the defendant within four weeks   from today. Replication thereto, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within four   weeks thereafter.   List on the date fixed.   MANMOHAN SINGH, J   OCTOBER 12, 2009   SD   ________________________________________________________________________

FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS MARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD

$~27

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   FAO 30/2018 & CAV 48/2018, CM APPL. 2669/2018, CM APPL.

2670/2018
M/S FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED	..... Appellant
Through:Mr. Salman Khurshid and Mr. Dayan
Krishnan, Senior Advocates with Mr. Saikrishna
Rajagopal,  Mr.  Sidharth  Chopra,  Mr.  Saurabh
Srivastava, Mr. NitinSharma,	Ms.	Shilpa
Gupta,  Mr.  Ranjeet  Singh,  Ms.  Aakashi  Lodha,
Ms. Roshni W.Anand,  Ms.	Gitanajali	Kaur,
Mr.  Vikramaditya  Singh  and  Ms.  A.  Rehman,
Advocates.
Versus
M/S MARC ENTERPRISES PVT LTD.	..... Respondent

Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Kapil Kumar Giri, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

%		O R D E R
		22.01.2018
CAV. No.48/2018

1.                 Since the learned counsel for the caveator has put appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

C.M.No.2670/2018 (for exemption)

2.                 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

3.                 The application stands disposed off.

FAO 30/2018 & C.M.No.2669/2018 (for stay)

4.                 Issue notice.

5.                 Mr. S.K. Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

6.                 The appellant is aggrieved by an ex-parte order dated 18.01.2018 restraining it from using the trademark ‘MARQ’ for selling electronic goods such as televisions, washing machines and microwave ovens. The appellant sells these goods primarily through the internet and advertises its goods in print media as well.

7.                 The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that:

(i)                although the appellant was represented by counsel before the Trial Court on the day the impugned order was passed, despite a request that a copy of the plaint be supplied to the appellant and it be heard, the request went unheeded and the impugned injunction was passed;

(ii)             the suit for injunction was first instituted by the plaintiff on 11.01.2018, it was then renotified by the court a week later, on 18.01.2018; this itself shows that there was no pressing urgency that the appellant could not have been accommodated even for a day or be heard the very day after a copy of the plaint had been given to it;

(iii)           the trademark of the appellant is distinct from that of the respondent particularly in its font-style and design; that the products being manufactured and/or sold by the appellant are not even manufactured by the respondent;

(iv)           besides the user of the said products would ordinarily be persons who would discern the product on the basis of the distinct visual mark, hence there could be no confusion in their mind about the identity and origin of the

products;

(iv)           the respondent does not have exclusive right to use of the trademark ‘MARC’ because the same mark is being used by other persons all over India as well as in the United States of America. In support of his contention he refers to documents on the record which are print-outs from the websearch of the Trade Mark Register.

8.                 Mr. S.K. Bansal, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the latter has registration of the trademark ‘MARC’ in 5 classes, while the appellant has none. He contends that, therefore, the statutory protection would be available to the respondent with all its force and an injunction against passing-off too would be available against sale of goods using phonetically similar trademark, otherwise the respondent’s interests in the trademark would be irreparably prejudiced. He submits that it is another matter that the appellant has applied for registration of their mark ‘MARQ’ in July, 2017, which was published in the Trade Mark Journal in August, 2017, as the process of registration is a long drawn out process.

9.                 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that their present concern is that in view of the impugned order the inventory of the aforesaid goods which are planned to be disposed off in the ensuing Republic Day weekend sale has been stalled. Therefore, the appellant seeks time till 30.01.2018 to dispose of the same with the trademark ‘MARQ’ printed on them.

10.            Mr. Bansal had sought a passover to obtain instructions and upon having been instructed, he submits that subject to the appellant rendering accounts, the respondent would have no objection to the disposal of the said inventory.

10.            In view of the above, by consent, the following order is passed:

(i)   The appellant is permitted to dispose off its inventory of the aforesaid goods (as mentioned in para 6 & 9) till 30.01.2018 under the trademark ‘MARQ’ and advertise their sale through the print and electronic media;

(ii) This concession is only till 30.01.2018. The impugned order is modified only to this extent.

11.            Reply be filed before the next date of hearing.

12.            At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent states that he would not be averse to the possibility of an amicable settlement of the lis, being explored. The learned counsel for the parties submit that, upon being instructed, they will discuss the matter amongst themselves and if required the parties too shall sit together and would do so on or before 31.01.2018.

13.            List on 01.02.2018.

14.            Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J

JANUARY 22, 2018

RW