T.S.Thakur, J:

This appeal arises out of an order dated 28th July, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an ad interim order of injunction earlier issued against the defendant-respondent herein has been made absolute with the modification that the defendant can continue to use the alphabets LNT in an explanatory extended form as given in the order to avoid the likelihood of any confusion that the goods being sold by it are those of the plaintiff-appellant.

Dissatisfied with the said order even the defendant-respondent has filed cross objections inter alia challenging the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the adoption and use of the trade mark LNT by it is malafide and intended to take advantage of the tremendous reputation which the plaintiff-appellant has earned in the commercial world. The controversy arises in the following backdrop:

2. The appellant Larsen and Toubro Ltd. for short L&T is engaged in diverse business activities including transportation and infrastructural development, finance, information technology within and outside this country. Nearly a dozen subsidiary companies using the L&T prefix with their names have been incorporated over the years to carry on the said business activities. The plaintiff’s case is that it has applied for registering the marks “Larsen and Toubro” and “L&T” which applications are pending consideration. The plaintiff’s further case is that its turnover and annual profits run into thousands of crores and that goods manufactured and services provided by it are being advertised extensively in print and visual media. The publicity expenditure, has according to the plaintiff-appellant, gone up from Rs.7 crores in 1991-1992 to Rs.53 crores in 2001-2002. Suffice it to say that according to the averments made in the plaint, the words/abbreviation L&T has acquired a secondary meaning associating the same exclusively with the plaintiff which abbreviated or stylised form has been used by the appellant exclusively and extensively for considerable length of time stretching over nearly half a century. The plaintiff indeed claims to be one of the Asias top most companies in India in the category of high quality service/products.

3. Aggrieved by the use of the names/abbreviation LNT and ELENTE as brand names for electrical goods including electrical distribution systems like miniature circuit breakers etc. by the defendants, the plaintiff company filed a suit restraining it from passing of the said goods as that of the plaintiff by confusing the unwary customers. The plaintiff’s case, as set out in the plaint, was that the use of name/abbreviation LNT by the defendant was intended to capitalize on the goodwill of the plaintiff, for otherwise there was no reason for the defendant to adopt such a name and abbreviation. It was also alleged that the defendant/respondent had applied for registration of the trade mark LNT under Section 18 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act before the trade marks authority. Pending the disposal of the application, the defendant had, despite notice issued to it, refused to stop the user of the mark LNT leaving no alternative for the plaintiff except to file the suit and seek an injunction.

.4. An application seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark LNT/ELENTE was also filed by the plaintiff on which a learned Single Judge sitting on original side of this Court passed an ex parte injunction on 27th June, 2003 restraining the defendants, their servants, agents etc. from using the marks/names/words/abbreviation LNT/ELENTE and any other deceptively similar name in relation to any of the goods being marketed by the defendants.

5. The defendants contested the suit in the written statement filed by them inter alia alleging that the name LNT/ELENTE was not similar to the trade mark and trade name used by the plaintiff. It was alleged that while the plaintiff was using the letters L and T for it