The main legal point established is that the phonetic and visual similarity between trade marks, honest adoption defense, and delay in seeking relief are crucial factors in infringement and passing off actions.

1. The Notice of Motion seeks interim reliefs in an infringement and passing off suit. By consent of Counsel, the motion is taken up for hearing at the ad-interim stage itself.

2. The Plaintiff is a leading pharmaceutical business house in India and is a registered proprietor of the trade mark 'CEDON' vide Registration No. 717042 as of 14.08.1996 in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. The Plaintiff manufactures and markets antibacterial dry syrup used to treat cough, under the trade mark 'CEDON'. The Plaintiff has used the trade mark in relation to these goods continuously since 2004. The sales figures, invoices, promotional material, etc. produced with the Plaint indicates an extensive sale of the goods under the trade mark 'CEDON' by the Plaintiff throughout the last more than ten years. In 2013-14 itself, the sales were over Rs. 11 crores. In August 2014, the Plaintiff learnt about the use of the mark 'CEFDON' by Defendant No. 1 in respect of similar goods, namely, antibacterial dry cough syrup. The Plaintiff thereupon served a cease and desist notice on Defendant No.1 and its manufactures, one M/s Origin Formulations Pvt. Ltd. Whilst Defendant No.1 refused to desist from using the mark 'CEFDON', M/s Origin Formulation agreed and undertook to stop the use of the mark. The Plaintiff later found that Defendant No.1 continued to market its goods under the mark 'CEFDON', getting the same manufactured by Defendant No.2. Hence the suit and the application by way of a Notice of Motion. Since the Defendants are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court and the cause of action for passing off also arises outside, the Plaintiff has filed a leave petition for combining the two causes of action.

3. Defendant No.1 contests the leave petition and the Notice of Motion. Defendant No.1 has also taken out its own Notice of Motion, Notice of Motion (L) No. 2978 of 2014, under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the Plaint.

4. All three matters, i.e. the Leave Petition and the two Notices of Motion, are taken up for hearing.

5. The Suit, in so far as the cause of action for infringement is concerned, lies within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff, who is the registered proprietor of the trade mark, infringement whereof is the subject matter of this Suit, carries on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is alleged that the Defendants, by means of selling their goods under the offending mark 'CEFDON', are not only infringing the Plaintiff's registered trade mark 'CEDON', but also passing off their goods as the goods of the Plaintiff. The same set of facts, as those alleged in respect of the cause of action of infringement, are the foundation of the plea of passing off. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it is in the interest of justice to allow the Plaintiff to combine the causes of actions of infringement and passing off in the suit. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the Defendants thereby.

6. Now, coming to the Notice of Motion (L) No. 2978 of 2014, the Defendant's case is that the Plaint has been affirmed on behalf of the Plaintiff by an unauthorized person. It is submitted that Suresh Mahalingam, who has affirmed the Plaint, is not a director or principal officer of the Plaintiff Company; that the Plaintiff has not produced on record any resolution passed by its Board of Directors for instituting the suit herein or authorizing Suresh Mahalingam to affirm the plaint on its behalf; and that therefore, having regard to Section 291 of the Companies Act read with Order 29 Rule 1 of CPC, the Plaintiff is barred from instituting the Suit, requiring rejection of its plaint under Order 7 Rule 11.

7. Under Order 29 Rule 1, in a suit by or against a corporation any pleading may be signed or verified on behalf of the corporation by its Secretory. Suresh Mahalingam is the Company Secretory of the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff has produced