( 1 ) I have heard arguments for deciding these two applications, one moved by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction till the disposal of the suit and the other moved by the defendants seeking vacation of the exparte interim injunction granted by this Court.

( 2 ) FACTS leading to the filing of these two applications, in brief, are that in the year 1888, one Seth Pestunji Edulji Poison had started business of selling coffee in Bombay and in 1900, he started using the trade mark polson which was part of his name for selling coffee. Subsequently, he expanded his business and in about 1915 he had started marketing and selling butter, cheese, flour, etc. besides coffee under the said trade mark polson . It is the case of the plaintiff that the brand polson became immensely popular due to its high quality goods. polson rather became synonymous with quality butter being marketed under the said name in the minds of the people. In about 1930, he had developed a modern dairy at Anand (Gujarat) by the name of Poison Model Dairy which inter-alia produced butter under mechanised process. In the year 1938, Polson Private Limited was incorporated to further expand the business of said Polson.

( 3 ) SO, it is averred in the plaint that for over a period of time, the said company became a pioneer in the establishment and development of dairy sector and played a significant role in the development of "agmark Scheme" by the Central Government. The plaintiff expanded its activities to the eastern part of India in 1950 when it established a pilot plant in Khagaul in Bihar. Another dairy was established at Digha Ghat near Patna. in the year 1957. It is also averred that the plaintiff also started dealing in tea in 1963. So, it is averred that plaintiff s commercial activities spanned from coffee and tea to flour, table creamery, butter, etc. which were all sold under the trade mark polson which continues to be House-Mark and Corporate Name of the plaintiff company. Reliance has been placed by the plaintiff with regard to all these facts on plaintiff s brochure that was published on its 75th Anniversary (1888-1963) as well as in the In- House Journals "poison Trading" published in various years. The plaintiff had given the sale figures which ran into crores every year for the years 1966 to 1978.

( 4 ) IT is averred that due to certain policy decision taken by the Central Government, the dairy sector witnessed sharp changes as under the Government policy, the dairy business was reserved for the Co-operative Sectors and certain restrictions were gradually imposed on the free operations of the private sector dairy corporations. It is alleged that in 1965, the Collector of Kaira District in Gujarat restrained the plaintiff company from taking out butter produced in Gujarat by the plaintiff outside the said district. The major plant of the plaintiff was situated in that district. Later on, after some negotiations, the plaintiff was permitted to remove only 1200 tones of butter from that district against an installed capacity of 2184 tones. Later on, the said quantity which was allowed to be taken out from the district was scaled down to only 600 tones a year. So, it is alleged that under such circumstances, the plaintiff s dairy operations in Eastern India had to be suspended and as the plaintiff s dairy business became totally uneconomical due to such restructions being imposed under the Government policy, the plaintiff had to suspend its dairy operations since 1978 onwards. But the plaintiff continued to market its other products under his trade/corporate name Poison Limited which is evident from the copies of the balance-sheet of the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Reference has also been made to these facts in the Polson Today in- house journal published in October to December 1972.

( 5 ) IT is also claimed by the plaintiff that in the year 1972, the plaintiff company, in order to diversify its activities, had acquired Amba Ta