Friday, September 29, 2017

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  fodefendant  submits  that  if  plaintiff    is relying  upon  another  documentit  mabe  specifiedLearned 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  bthe Honble  Court  athtime  of  arguments.  Learned  counsel  for defendant submits that this court can decide the objection. Learned counsel  for  plaintiff    submitthat  matter  mabe  placebefore Honble Court.
Matter be listed before Honble 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  27t 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








Tuesday, September 26, 2017

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

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog