Wednesday, May 9, 2018

CROCS INC USA VS RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD-570 OF 2017





$~2

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 570/2017


M/S CROCS INC USA

..... Plaintiff


Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv.

versus


M/S RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD
Through: Ms. Samreen Khan, Adv.

..... Defendant


CORAM:

SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) O R D E R

%                                02.01.2018

IA No. 11731/2017 (u/O XI Rule 1 & 4 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC for seeking permission of the Court to take additional documents on record)

Reply to the IA filed by defendant has already come on record.

Heard on IA.

Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the additional documents were filed by plaintiff prior to the settlement of issues in the case. The said documents are material and necessary for effective adjudication of the case. He further submits that trial in the case is yet to commence, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the defendants, if the documents of plaintiff are taken on record at this stage. It is further submitted that the additional documents were obtained after filing of the suit. He further submits that if the additional documents are not taken on record, serious prejudice would be caused to the




rights of the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

Per contra, learned counsel for defendant submits that the documents were in power and possession of plaintiff, however, they were not filed at the time of filing of the suit. She further submits that as issues in the case have already been settled, therefore, trial in the case has already begun. She further submits that plaintiff has failed to show sufficient cause or bonafide reasons for not filing of the documents at the time of filing of the suit. She further submits that the instant application of the plaintiff is nothing but a ploy just to delay the matter. She further submits that the averments made in the application shows careless and casual approach of the plaintiff in pursuing the case. She further argues that this is a commercial suit which is to be decided in a time bound manner. She prays to dismiss the application of plaintiff.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the entire material on record.

Record reveals that issues in the case were settled on 14.09.2017. The additional documents were admittedly filed by plaintiff on 13.09.2017 i.e. prior to settlement of issues in the case. Recording of evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses is yet to begun. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that in the affidavit of witness, the plaintiff has referred and relied upon the documents, for which leave of the court is being sought in the present I.A.

Thus this court finds that trial in the case is yet to begun. Matter is at the initial stage. The additional documents sought to be placed on record by plaintiff as mentioned in para no. 2 of the I.A. are reported to be relevant and material for effective adjudication of dispute between the parties. The same were admittedly obtained after filing of the suit by the plaintiff and plaintiff filed the said documents in the court prior to settlement of issues.




If the additional documents of plaintiff are taken on record at this stage, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of defendant. The defendant will get opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on the said documents. Thus no ground for not taking additional documents of plaintiff on record is made out.

Considering the aforesaid facts into account and totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant IA preferred by plaintiff, is hereby allowed. The additional documents as prayed in the IA are directed to be taken on record in the interest of justice.

IA stands disposed of accordingly.

CS (COMM) 570/2017

Evidence in the case is being recorded before the Court Commissioner. As prayed, list the matter before the Hon’ble Court, on the date already

fixed in the case i.e. 04.01.2018.





SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI (DHJS)

JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)



JANUARY 02, 2018
NR

CROCS INC USA VS RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD-571 OF 2017





$~3

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 571/2017


CROCS INC USA

..... Plaintiff


Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv.

versus


RELAXO FOOTWEAR LTD
Through: Ms. Samreen Khan, Adv.

..... Defendant


CORAM:

SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) O R D E R

%                                02.01.2018

IA No. 11729/2017 (u/O XI Rule 1 & 4 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC for seeking permission of the Court to take additional documents on record)

Reply to the IA filed by defendant has already come on record.

Heard on IA.

Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the additional documents were filed by plaintiff prior to the settlement of issues in the case. The said documents are material and necessary for effective adjudication of the case. He further submits that trial in the case is yet to commence, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the defendants, if the documents of plaintiff are taken on record at this stage. It is further submitted that the additional documents were obtained after filing of the suit. He further submits that if the additional documents are not taken on record, serious prejudice would be caused to the




rights of the plaintiff which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

Per contra, learned counsel for defendant submits that the documents were in power and possession of plaintiff, however, they were not filed at the time of filing of the suit. She further submits that as issues in the case have already been settled, therefore, trial in the case has already begun. She further submits that plaintiff has failed to show sufficient cause or bonafide reasons for not filing of the documents at the time of filing of the suit. She further submits that the instant application of the plaintiff is nothing but a ploy just to delay the matter. She further submits that the averments made in the application shows careless and casual approach of the plaintiff in pursuing the case. She further argues that this is a commercial suit which is to be decided in a time bound manner. She prays to dismiss the application of plaintiff.

I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and carefully perused the entire material on record.

Record reveals that issues in the case were settled on 14.09.2017. The additional documents were admittedly filed by plaintiff on 13.09.2017 i.e. prior to settlement of issues in the case. Recording of evidence of plaintiff’s witnesses is yet to begun. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that in the affidavit of witness, the plaintiff has referred and relied upon the documents, for which leave of the court is being sought in the present I.A.

Thus this court finds that trial in the case is yet to begun. Matter is at the initial stage. The additional documents sought to be placed on record by plaintiff as mentioned in para no. 2 of the I.A. are reported to be relevant and material for effective adjudication of dispute between the parties. The same were admittedly obtained after filing of the suit by the plaintiff and plaintiff filed the said documents in the court prior to settlement of issues.




If the additional documents of plaintiff are taken on record at this stage, no prejudice would be caused to the rights of defendant. The defendant will get opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on the said documents. Thus no ground for not taking additional documents of plaintiff on record is made out.

Considering the aforesaid facts into account and totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the instant IA preferred by plaintiff, is hereby allowed. The additional documents as prayed in the IA are directed to be taken on record in the interest of justice.

IA stands disposed of accordingly.

CS (COMM) 571/2017

Evidence in the case is being recorded before the Court Commissioner. As prayed, list the matter before the Hon’ble Court, on the date already

fixed in the case i.e. 04.01.2018.




SH. RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI (DHJS)
JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)



JANUARY 02, 2018
NR

Tuesday, May 8, 2018

CROCS INC.USA Vs AQUALITE-AMENDMENT APPLICATION





$~1

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CS(COMM) 52/2018

CROCS INC.USA                                                                                               ..... Plaintiff

Through:        Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate.

Versus

AQUALLITE INDIA LIMITED AND ANR.                            ..... Defendants

Through:        Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate with

Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Advocate and Mr.
Rohan Seth, Advocate.
CORAM:

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

%                                         01.05.2018

1.                           Let  a  copy  of  the  detailed  order  disposing  of  the  interim

injunction application in this suit passed on 8.2.2018 be placed in this suit

file being CS(COMM) No.52/2018, alongwith the short order in this suit

dated 8.2.2018 existing in this file.

I.A. No.                 /2018 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by plaintiff)

2.                           This application be numbered by Registry.

3.                           By this application the plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to add

para 33 by stating that the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit on more or less the

same cause of action and for seeking the same reliefs against the present


CS(COMM) No.52/2018                                                                                                 page 1 of 4




defendants in the District Courts at Saket and that in this earlier suit by an order dated 9.6.2017, exparte interim injunction was declined to the plaintiff. The plaintiff then withdrew that earlier suit with liberty, which was granted to file this suit, but the factum of the exparte injunction being declined by the Saket District Courts was not mentioned in this suit. It is stated that plaintiff now seeks to plead this averment of having earlier filed the suit against the same defendant on more or less the same facts and in which suit exparte injunction was declined to the plaintiff and the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint to this extent on account of the amendment prayed for being only clarificatory and also because this fact was not mentioned in the existing plaint because of “ bonafide opinion of law”.

4. In my opinion, this application is a gross abuse of process of law. Plaintiff has been found guilty of concealment of material facts with respect to facts not being stated of non-grant of interim injunction in the earlier suit, as per the plaint filed in the subject suit filed in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (and which has thereafter been transferred to this Court). The result of concealment was that an exparte injunction was successfully obtained by the plaintiff. It is noted that in view of the above facts of


CS(COMM) No.52/2018                                                                                                 page 2 of 4




concealment the exparte injunction granted to the plaintiff has been subsequently vacated by the order dated 7.9.2017 in an appeal being FAO No.361/2017.
5. No doubt the law of amendment of pleadings is liberal, however it is equally settled law that malafide amendments ought not to be allowed. Once the dishonesty of the plaintiff became apparent and the plaintiff was caught in having concealed the factum of concealment of filing of an earlier suit on more or less the same facts against the same defendant wherein plaintiff could not get an exparte interim order and resultantly the plaintiff derived an advantage by being successful in getting an exparte injunction order in this suit on 8.8.2017, therefore this dishonesty which has been exposed cannot be sought to be undone by allowing this application. If this amendment is allowed, it would in fact amount to Court permitting a person to get over his dishonesty of concealment of facts after such a person is caught at the dishonest act because of the defendants discovering such fact and then bringing the same to the notice of this Court.

6. This application is therefore dismissed with costs. Defendant no.1 will file its certificate of fees for today’s hearing with respect to present

CS(COMM) No.52/2018                                                                                                 page 3 of 4




application, and such certificate of fees supported by the affidavit of defendant no.1 with respect to fees paid to its counsel for today’s hearing will be the costs payable in favour of the defendant no.1 by the plaintiff. Affidavit be filed by the defendant no.1 alongwith the certificate of fees of its lawyers within two weeks from today and within two weeks thereafter costs will be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1.

+CS(COMM) No.52/2018

7. Counsel for the defendants states that plaintiff has not paid the costs as imposed upon the plaintiff in terms of the order dated 8.2.2018.

8. In my opinion, considering that present suit is a commercial suit, plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong in not paying the costs, and prima facie this suit ought to have been dismissed today for non-compliance of the order passed by this Court on 8.2.2018, however since the counsel for the plaintiff states that an appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 8.2.2018 which is coming up for

hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on 4.5.2018, list on 21st August, 2018.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J

MAY 01, 2018/Ne


CS(COMM) No.52/2018                                                                                                 page 4 of 4

Friday, May 4, 2018

AQUALITE INDIA LTD VS CROCS INC-T.P.





$~2

*                    IN THE HIGH  COURT OF DELHI  AT NEW DELHI

+TR.P.(C.) 19/2018


AQUALITE INDIA LTD & ANR
..... Petitioners


Through:
Mr. C.A. Brijesh & Mr. Rohan Seth,


versus
Advocates.






CROCS INC

..... Respondent


Through:
Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate
CORAM:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

%

O R D E R



09.03.2018




The case CS (Commercial) 52/2018 titled Crocs Inc. Vs. Aqualite India Limited and Another is pending in the original side in the commercial division of this Court. The Suit bearing No. TM No. 169/2017 has also been filed by the same plaintiff (the respondent herein) against the petitioners which is pending in the Court of Ms. Twinkle Wadhwa, Additional District Judge, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts Complex.

The parties are common and the issues are similar. The counsel for the respondent submits no objection to the prayer.

Thus, the civil suit, as aforesaid, pending on the file of Additional District Judge, New Delhi, Patiala House Complex is withdrawn from the said Court and transferred to the original side of this Court for further proceedings in accordance with law.


TR.P.(C.) 19/2018                                                                                                                               page 1 of 2




The transferor court shall send the file complete in all respects to the transferee court after fixing an appropriate date for the parties to appear there.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.



R.K.GAUBA, J.

MARCH 09, 2018

nk







TR.P.(C.) 19/2018                                                                                                                               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