ANURAG SANGHI & ANR VS KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL

$~19, 21 & 28

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   FAO 443/2017 and C.M. Nos.41035/2017 (stay) & 41036/2017 (exemption)

ANURAG SANGHI & ANR                                                    ..... Appellants

Through:        Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy,

Advocate, Ms. Samreen Khan,

Advocate and Mr. Rupin Bahl,

Advocate.

versus

KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL                                              ..... Respondent

Through:        Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Ajay Amitabh

Suman, Advocate.

+                   FAO 445/2017 and C.M. Nos.41115/2017 (stay) & 41116/2017 (exemption)

ANURAG SANGHI & ANR	..... Appellants
Through:	Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior
	Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy,
	Advocate, Ms. Samreen Khan,
	Advocate and Mr. Rupin Bahl,
versus	Advocate.
KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL	..... Respondent
Through:	Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior
	Advocate with Mr. Ajay Amitabh
	Suman, Advocate.

FAO Nos.443/2017, 445/2017 & 446/2017                                                    page 1 of 3

+                   FAO 446/2017 and C.M. Nos.41142/2017 (stay) & 41143/2017 (exemption)

ANURAG SANGHI & ANR                                    ..... Appellant

Through:        Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy,

Advocate, Ms. Samreen Khan,

Advocate and Mr. Rupin Bahl,

Advocate.

versus

KNITPRO INTERNATIONAL                                              ..... Respondent

Through:        Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Ajay Amitabh

Suman, Advocate.

CORAM:

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

%                                         14.11.2017

1.                           After arguments, all the impugned orders dated 31.8.2017 in

FAO No.443/2017 and 9.10.2017 in FAO Nos.445/2017 & 446/2017 are set

aside with consent but the same will not be a reflection on the respective

cases of the parties on merits so far as disposal of injunction applications

filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is concerned.

2. Appellants will file written statements alongwith their documents positively within three weeks from today and the respondents/plaintiffs will file replications thereto alongwith their

FAO Nos.443/2017, 445/2017 & 446/2017                                                    page 2 of 3

documents within two weeks thereafter.

3. Trial court is requested to make endeavours to expeditiously dispose of the injunction applications and trial court is directed to impose very heavy costs on the party which seeks unnecessary adjournments on the dates fixed for hearings of the injunction applications filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Since the impugned orders are set aside whatever has been sealed or seized pursuant to the impugned orders, will be available to the appellants/defendants for their business noting that there is already a list prepared of the items by the Local Commissioners who are appointed in the cases.

4.                           Appeals are disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations.

5.                           Dasti to the counsels for the parties.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Ne

FAO Nos.443/2017, 445/2017 & 446/2017                                                    page 3 of 3

S.MOBILE DEVICES LIMITED VS KMC ELECTRONICS PVT LTD

$~32

*             IN   THE   HIGH   COURT   OF   DELHI   AT   NEW     DELHI

+

FAO 413/2017

S.MOBILE DEVICES LIMITED                                         ..... Appellant

Through:        Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Munish Mehra,

Mr. Sumant Narang & Ms. Riddima Sharma,

Advs.

versus

KMC ELECTRONICS PVT LTD                                        ..... Respondent

Through:        Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. S.K.Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman & Mr. Kapil Giri, Advs.

CORAM:

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

%                                         27.10.2017

1.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of with the consent order that the impugned order dated 12.10.2017 is suspended and the injunction application filed by the respondent/plaintiff will now be decided by the Trial Court after completion of pleadings in the suit. Trial Court will decide the injunction application of the respondent/plaintiff uninfluenced by any observation made in the impugned order dated 12.10.2017 as also by the fact that this impugned order is suspended till the pleadings are complete and hearing is given on the injunction application filed by

the respondent/plaintiff.

2.                Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/defendant, on instructions, states that written statements and reply to the injunction application along with all relevant documents in support of their case will positively be filed within four weeks from today. If the same is not done, thereafter it shall be taken on record, subject to payment of

costs of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/plaintiff. Respondent/plaintiff will file replication and rejoinder along with all relevant documents in support of their case, if not already filed, within a period of two weeks of filing of the written statement by the appellant/defendant. It is noted that the next date as per the impugned order is 30.11.2017 and therefore parties will appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed.

3.                Since the impugned order is suspended, whatsoever has been the consequences of the impugned order dated 12.10.2017 will not operate and whatever are the goods of the appellant/defendant will be de sealed by the appellant/defendant themselves as the goods are on

superdari with the appellant/defendant and the lists of goods are already prepared and submitted in the Court along with the reports of

the Local Commissioner.

4.                Appeal is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

OCTOBER 27, 2017

ak

CROCS VS ACTION SHOES PVT LTD -APPEAL UNDER SECTION 10 OF DELHI HIGH COURT ACT DISMISSED

$~37-46
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI		AT  NEW  DELHI
+		FAO (OS) 305/2017, CM APPL.44188-44190/2017
	CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
		versus
	ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR		..... Respondents

FAO (OS) 306/2017, CM APPL.44191-44193/2017

CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
	versus
BATA INDIA LTD		..... Respondent
	FAO (OS) (COMM) 206/2017, CM APPL.44164-44166/2017
CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
	versus
LIBERTY SHOES LTD & ANR		..... Respondents
	FAO (OS) (COMM) 207/2017, CM APPL.44167-44169
CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
	versus
LIBERTY SHOES LTD & ORS		..... Respondents
	FAO (OS) (COMM) 208/2017, CM APPL.44170-44172/2017
CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
	versus
RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD		..... Respondent
	FAO (OS) (COMM) 209/2017, CM APPL.44173-44175/2017
CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
	versus
BATA INDIA LTD		..... Respondent
	FAO (OS) (COMM) 210/2017, CM APPL.44176-44178/2017
CROCS INC USA		..... Appellant
	versus
RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD		..... Respondent

FAO (OS) 305/2017 & connected matters                                                                                                       Page 1

FAO (OS) (COMM) 211/2017, CM APPL.44179-44181/2017

	CROCS INC USA				..... Appellant
			versus
	BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LTD & ANR Respondents
		FAO (OS) (COMM) 212/2017, CM APPL.44182-44184/2017
	CROCS INC USA				..... Appellant
			versus
	BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LTD & ANR Respondents
		FAO (OS) (COMM) 213/2017, CM APPL.44185-44187/2017
	CROCS INC USA				..... Appellant
			versus
	ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ORS				..... Respondents
	Appearance: Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Bansal,
	Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Kapil Kumar
	Giri, Advocates for appellants, in all matters.
	Mr. Neeraj Grover with Ms. Kanika Bajaj and Mr. Mehak Nakara,
	Advocates for respondents/Bata in Item-38&42.
	Mr. Jayant Mehta with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Devyani Nath and
	Mr. Shubhankar, Advocates for respondents in Items-39&40.
	Mr. Kapil Wadhwa and Ms. Devyani Nath, Advocates for respondents
	in Items-37&46.
	Mr. Anil  Dutt  with Ms.  Vindhya  S.  Mani,  Advocates  for  R-1  in
	Items-44&45.
	Mr.  M.K.  Miglani  with  Mr.  Gaurav  Miglani,				Advocates  for
	respondents in Items-41&43.
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
			O R D E R
%	05.12.2017

This Court is of the opinion that the orders in this case have not determined the respective rights and the liabilities of the parties. In

FAO (OS) 305/2017 & connected matters                                                                                                       Page 2

these circumstances, learned counsel seeks liberty to withdraw these appeals and approach the Court as and when any order on the merits of the applications under Order-XXXIX Rule-1&2 and Order-XXXIX Rule-4, CPC are made. It goes without saying that all rights and contentions of the parties to urge the submissions that are available in law are kept open. The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn, along with all the pending applications.

A copy of this order be given under the signatures of Court Master to the parties.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

DECEMBER 05, 2017

/vikas/

FAO (OS) 305/2017 & connected matters                                                                                                       Page 3

THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE, ASSAILED.

$~11 to 20

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CS (COMM) 772/2016 and I.A. Nos. 7905/2016, 418/2017

M/S CROCS INC.USA

Through:

..... Plaintiff

Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD

Through:

..... Defendant

Mr.    Jayant        Mehta,       Mr.        Kapil

Wadhwa,  Ms.   Devyani  Nath,     Mr.

Shubhankar and Mr. Rahul Kukreja,

Advocates for D-1.

+

CS(COMM) 905/2016 and I.A. No. 8606/2016

M/S CROCS INC USA

Through:

..... Plaintiff

Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S ACTION SHOES PVT LTD & ANR                     ..... Defendants

Through:        Mr. Kapil Wadhwa and Ms. Devyani

Nath, Advocates.

+                   CS(COMM) 906/2016 and I.A. No. 8609/2016

M/S CROCS INC USA                                                                          ..... Plaintiff

Through:        Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LIMITED

..... Defendant

Through:        Mr.  Anil  Dutt  and  Ms.  Vindhya  S.

Mani, Advocates.

Mr.  Vijay  Singh  and  Mr.   Praveen

Sehrawat, Advocates for R-2.

+                   CS(COMM) 1415/2016 and I.A. No. 12767/2016

M/S CROCS INC. USA                                                                        ..... Plaintiff

Through:        Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri and Mr. Vinay Kr. Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S LIBERTY SHOES LTD & OTHERS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Mr. Kapil

Wadhwa,  Ms.   Devyani  Nath,     Mr.

Shubhankar and Mr. Rahul Kukreja,

Advocates for D-1.

+                   CS(COMM) 569/2017 and I.A. No. 6809/2015, 11728/2017

CROCS INC USA

Through:

..... Plaintiff

Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

BATA INDIA LTD & ORS                                                          ..... Defendants

Through:        Mr.  Neeraj  Grover and  Ms.  Kanika

Bajaj, Advocates.

+                   CS(COMM) 570/2017 and I.A. No. 11731/2017

M/S CROCS INC USA                                                                        ..... Plaintiff

Through:        Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri and Mr. Vinay Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD

..... Defendant

Through:        Mr.  M.K.  Miglani  and  Mr.  Gaurav

Miglani, Advocates.

+                   CS(COMM) 571/2017 and I.A. No. 6811/2015, 11729/2017

CROCS INC USA

Through:

..... Plaintiff

Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD

Through:

..... Defendant

Mr.  M.K.  Miglani  and  Mr.  Gaurav

Miglani, Advocates.

+                   CS(COMM) 780/2017 and I.A. No. 9971/2015, 13312/2017

CROCS INC.USA

Through:

..... Plaintiff

Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

BIOWORLD MERCHANDISING INDIA LTD. & ORS

..... Defendants

Through:        Mr.  Anil  Dutt  and  Ms.  Vindhya  S.

Mani, Advocates.

+                   CS(OS) 2850/2014 and I.A. Nos. 19747/2014, 24965/2014, 350/2016 & 11730/2017

CROCS INC USA                                                                                               ..... Plaintiff

Through:        Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Kapil Giri and Mr. Vinay Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S BATA INDIA LTD AND ORS

..... Defendants

Through:        Mr.  Neeraj  Grover and  Ms.  Kanika

Bajaj, Advocates.

+

CS(OS) 64/2016

M/S CROES INC USA

Through:

..... Plaintiff

Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Advocate  with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar,

Mr.  Kapil  Giri  and  Mr.  Vinay  Kr.

Shukla, Advocates.

versus

M/S ACTION SHOES PVT LTD AND ORS                ..... Defendants

Through:        Mr. Kapil Wadhwa and Ms. Devyani

Nath, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

O R D E R

%                                         24.11.2017

1.                Counsels for the defendants have been heard with respect to injunction application filed by the plaintiff and the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants.

2.                Counsels for the defendants want to address the remaining arguments by referring to books and publications of existence of sandals in India for a very long period of time running into possibly centuries, in view of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3.                List on 6^th December, 2017 for the remaining arguments of the defendants as also arguments of the plaintiff. In anticipation of the judgment defendants are directed by the next date of hearing to file affidavits of their authorised persons as to the costs already incurred by them in these legal proceedings, whether in the form of lawyers fees or cost of litigation or details as to losses on account of ex-parte

injunction order operating against the defendants.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

NOVEMBER 24, 2017

rb