The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties can be bound by a family arrangement, and acquiescence to the use of a trademark can result in the refusal of interim relief.

A.S. Oka, J.

1. As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal has been specially assigned to the Division Bench presided over by one of us (A.S. Oka, J.). By this appeal, the appellants who are the original appellants have taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24th June 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge on the Notice of Motion No. 54 of 2012 in a suit No. 55 of 2012.

2. The appellants filed a suit No. 55 of 2012 before the learned Single Judge for injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner directly or indirectly using the mark “Neel” or “Neelkanth” (Exhibits A and S respectively to the plaint) and its domain name www.neelpower.com or any mark, device, logo, lable etc. which is similar and/or deceptively similar to the registered mark of the appellant bearing registration No. 1075665. Various other reliefs were claimed including the relief of damages. Temporary injunction was claimed by filing the aforesaid Notice of Motion seeking relief of temporary injunction in terms of the final relief.

3. The first appellant M/s. Neel Electro Techniques is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The second appellant M/s. Neel Controls is also a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is claimed in the plaint that though the first appellant firm was established on 11th February 1980 by one Shri Ravindra Gamanlal Mehta (third appellant), initially he was not a partner of the said firm. Initially his mother and real brother Hemant were the partners. The fourth and fifth appellants are the sons of the third appellant Ravindra. It is alleged that as the first appellant was doing the business solely on expertise and knowledge of the third appellant, till he became the partner of the first appellant, he was paid technical advice fees. The third appellant became a partner of the first appellant on 17th January 1981. It is alleged that after 1981, the partners of the first appellant were changed from time to time. It is claimed that on the date of institution of the suit, the third appellant, fifth appellant and the said Hemant are the partners of the firm having 40%, 20% and 40% shares respectively.

4. It is alleged that the first appellant was formed by the third appellant by investing his own money, efforts and skill. It is stated that the graphical representation of the mark “Neel” was created in or around July 1971 by the third appellant along with the sixth appellant. It is claimed that the sixth appellant is a good artist and has many paintings to his credit. The business of the first appellant is of manufacturing, marketing and selling of Servo Controlled Voltage Stabilisers and Isolation Transformers.

5. The second appellant is also carrying on business from the same place where the first appellant was carrying on the business. The place of both the first and second appellants is in the same building known as “Saphire Arcade” M.G. Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400077. The first appellant is carrying on business from the premises No. 401 of the said building and the second appellant is carrying on business in the premises No. 403 in the said building. The second appellant was formed on 19th April 1984. The business of the second appellant is similar to the business of the first appellant. In the second appellant firm at the time of its formation, the third appellant, the third appellant's wife and said Hemant were partners and on the date of institution of the suit, it is claimed that the third and fourth appellants along with said Hemant were partners having 25%, 25% and 50% shares respectively. It is alleged that the second appellant was allowed to be formed with the trading name “Neel” and that it was allowed by the partners of the first appellant to use the trade mark “Neel”. It is alleged that after the formation of the second appellant, it was agreed that existing business of the first appellan