ROHIT BHATIA VS SUBHASH ARORA

$~6

*        IN THE  HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

+        CS(COMM) 176/2017

ROHIT BHATIA                                                      ..... Plaintiff

Through      Mr. Ashok Kr. Mittal and Mr. Partha J. Deka, Advocates with plaintiff in person

versus

SUBHASH ARORA                                                ..... Defendant

Through      Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate

CORAM:

SH. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR O R D E R

%                          23.08.2017

Examination in chief of PW1 was recorded partly on the last date.  The  original  bills  exhibited  as  Ex.PW1/F1-134  stated  to  be placed on record of other case. The copies of the bills on record of this case are marked as Mark X (colly from page 215 to 357).

Learned counsel for defendant submits: (i) that plaintiff  has not relied upon his product, (ii) Ex. PW1/D is photograph. The product of which  Ex.PW1/D  is  a  photograph,  has  not  been  produced  and affidavit  of the photographer who took the photograph has not been placed on record. Therefore, Ex.PW1/D cannot be exhibited, (iii) Ex.PW1/A1, A2, A3 and A4 are photocopies and they cannot be exhibited. (iv) Ex.PW1/B is a copy to copy and it cannot be exhibited, (v)Ex.PW1/C1 and  C2 are not the original certificates obtained from the Office of Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and it cannot be exhibited.

Learned  counsel  for  defendant  submits  that  if  plaintiff    is relying  upon  any  other  document,  it  may  be  specified.  Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that plaintiff is relying upon the documents mentioned in his affidavit  and which have been exhibited

/ marked.

Learned counsel for plaintiff  submits that this court cannot de- exhibit the documents at this stage. Learned counsel for plaintiff further submits that before a local commissioner objection can be taken  regarding  the  documents  and  it  has  to  be  decided  by  the Hon’ble  Court  at  the  time  of  arguments.  Learned  counsel  for defendant submits that this court can decide the objection. Learned counsel  for  plaintiff    submits  that  matter  may  be  placed  before Hon’ble Court.

Matter be listed before Hon’ble Court on 22nd September, 2017

for direction.

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH (DHJS) JOINT REGISTRAR

AUGUST 23, 2017

ms

 

THIS ORDER OF LD.REGISTRAR WAS DEALT WITH HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND THAT THE SAME IS DEALT AS HERE IN BELOW:

$~10

*        

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

+        CS(COMM) 176/2017 & I.A. Nos.4593/2016, 9230/2016

ROHIT BHATIA                                                      ..... Plaintiff

Through      Mr. Ashok Mittal, Advocate

versus

SUBHASH ARORA                                                ..... Defendant

Through      Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and

Mr. Vinay Kumar Shukla, Advocates

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R

%                          22.09.2017

1.       The matter has been placed before  Court today pursuant to order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Joint Registrar.

2.       An  objection  was  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the defendant with regard to the Exhibit marks being put on certain documents tendered in the affidavit of PW-1. It is contended that the documents could not be given exhibit marks.

3.       The documents sought to be de-exhibited i.e. Ex.PW-1/D is a photograph, documents Ex.PW-1/A1, A2, A3 and A4 are photocopies and Ex. PW-1/B is a copy to copy and Ex.PW-1/C1 and Ex. PW-1/C2 are not the original certificates obtained from the Office of Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks but are certified copies of registration certificates which have been obtained from other judicial

proceedings.

4.       Insofar as the documents marked as Ex.PW-1/D, Ex.PW-1/C1 and Ex.PW-1/C2 are concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he shall prove the said documents in accordance with law by producing appropriate witness and/or summoning the original records.  Accordingly, the reference in the evidence affidavit to these documents as Exhibits is deleted.

5.       Insofar as the documents sought to be marked as Ex.PW-1/A1, A2, A3, A4 and Ex.PW-1/B are concerned, as they are not originals, the reference in the evidence affidavit to these documents as Exhibits is deleted.

6.     The said documents be only Marked for the purposes of identification.

7.       The objection is accordingly disposed of.

8.       List  before  the  Joint  Registrar  on  27th   October,  2017  for directions.

9.       List  before  Court  for  disposal  of  I.A.  No.  9230/2016  on

23.02.2018.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2017

nn

                    SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

VICKY AGGARWAL VS NAHAR SINGH MAHIPAL SINGH

$~6

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   FAO 14/2017 and C.M. No.738/2017 (stay)

VICKY AGGARWAL TRADING AS M/S HAINEY GLOBAL

..... Appellant

Through:        Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate

with Mr. Lalit Vohra, Advocate.

versus

NAHAR SINGH MAHIPAL JAIN                                                     ..... Respondent

Through:        Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA O R D E R

%                                         21.09.2017

1. After arguments, this appeal is disposed of with the consent order that respondent/defendant will not use the trademark VEDAN with respect to Monosodium Glutamate during the pendency of the suit, however, the disposal of the suit is expedited. Trial court is requested to expedite the disposal of the suit and not grant any unnecessary adjournments to the parties and which if are sought can be visited by the trial court with heavy costs. It is also agreed that trial court will not grant more than four opportunities to each of the parties to complete their evidence in chief and

FAO No.14/2017                                                                                                          page 1 of 2

final arguments will be heard by the trial court in the case within a period of four months of the completion of recording of evidence.

2. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of aforesaid consent order.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

SEPTEMBER 21, 2017

Ne

FAO No.14/2017                                                                                                          page 2 of 2

MOHD ANESUR RAHAMAN VS MOSARRAF HOSSAIN AND ORS

$~

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%		Reserved on: 21st September, 2017
		Pronounced on: 25th September, 2017
+	CS(COMM) 1418/2016
	MOHD ANESUR RAHAMAN			..... Plaintiff
	Through : Mr.Ajay		Amitabh	Suman,
		Mr.Pankaj	Kumar,  Mr.Kapil  Giri
		and Mr.Vijay Shukla, Advocates.
	versus
	MOSARRAF HOSSAIN AND ORS		..... Defendants
	Through :   Mr.Devesh Kr Malan and Ms.Usha
		Mahant, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

IA No.843/2017

1.                 This application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is moved for amendment in the plaint. The learned counsel for plaintiff/ applicant alleges when the suit was filed, the plaintiff had applied for the registration of the trademark / label ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL/ ANDAZ BIRI in relation to adverting, distribution, marketing, wholesale and retail services relating to Bidi falling in class No.35 of the IVth Schedule attached to the Trademarks Act, 1999.

2.                 However during the pendency of this suit, the ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL has been registered by the Trade Mark Registry on

IA No.843/2017 in CS (COMM) No.1418/2016                                                       Page 1 of 3

04.07.2016 and the copy of the registration certificate is annexed. Since, now the registration has been effected the plaintiff intends to pursue against the defendant for infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark/ ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL in relation to the alleged impugned activity of the defendant already pleaded in the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff intends to add para No.5A in the plaint just after para No.5 and also intends to incorporate sub para (iv) to para No.28A qua the relief of infringement of the registered trademark ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL No.2144329 in class No.35.

3.                 Further, he intends to add sub para (c) to para No.22 in the heading of infringement of copyright to be amended as infringement of trademark and copyright and sub para (c) in para No.22 to be read as “Infringement

of Plaintiff’s trademark ANDAZ BIRI NO.205 LABEL registered under No.2144329 in class 35.”

4.                 The learned counsel for the defendants, though has filed reply, but did not seriously challenge the amendment. Even otherwise, the facts necessitated amendment are effectuated by the subsequent events and hence there is no impediment as to why it should not be allowed since is necessary to resolve the controversy involved.

5.                 This Court in Usha International & Another vs. Usha Television Limited 2002 (25) PTC 184 (Del) (DB) has held as under:-

“15. The rule of amendment of pleadings has to be governed on the basic rule of justice, equity and goods conscience. When this principle is applied, the amendment as prayed has to be allowed. We are satisfied that the alternative plea that is sought to be raised by the appellant in the amendment

IA No.843/2017 in CS (COMM) No.1418/2016                                                       Page 2 of 3

application is only by way of expatiating his rights which he has secured by a statute. Apart from this, the main consideration for allowing the application is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings which means saving of precious judicial time and saving of avoidable expenses for the litigants.”

6.                   In view of above, the application of plaintiff is allowed. The amended plaint is taken on the record. No order as to cost.

CS(COMM) 1418/2016

7.                 Let defendants file the written statements to the amended plaint, if any, within four weeks from today with an advance copy thereof to the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Replication thereto, if any, be also filed within two weeks thereafter.

8.                 List for completion of the pleadings, admission/denial of the documents before the Joint Registrar on 14.02.2018.

9.                 Only upon completion of pleadings matter be listed in Court.

YOGESH KHANNA, J

SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

M

IA No.843/2017 in CS (COMM) No.1418/2016                                                       Page 3 of 3