Manmohan Singh, J.

1. Rajeev Saumitra, plaintiff has filed the present suit for, inter alia, declaration, rendition of account, damages, permanent and mandatory injunctions against the three defendants namely, (i) Ms. Neetu Singh (ii) M/s. K.D. Campus Pvt. Ltd. (iii) M/s. Paramount Coaching Centre Pvt. Ltd.

2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the pending application being I.A. No.17545/2015, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff.

3. The defendant No.3 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 vide certificate of incorporation dated 8th December, 2009. The plaintiff and his wife, defendant No.1 are holding 50% share each of defendant No.3 who is involved in the business of imparting education, training and preparation for various national competitive examinations.

4. There is a dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as to who adopted the mark PARAMOUNT prior in times. However, it is not in dispute that in 2009, the said mark became the property of defendant No.3-Company on its incorporation.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that he began the business of imparting education under the banner of Paramount Coaching Centre in January, 2005 as a sole proprietor. The plaintiff has pointed out few documents in order to show that prior to incorporation of defendant No.3 in the year 2005, the plaintiff opened a bank account with the Bank of Maharashtra as the sole proprietor of Paramount Coaching Centre. On the other hand, defendant No.1 in support of her claim for ownership of the name PARAMOUNT has relied upon a document in order to show the use of the name Paramount prior to 2005 of her reply to the plaintiff’s injunction application. The plaintiff submits that the said document is purporting to be a self-serving advertisement; the same is neither dated nor does it demonstrate as to where this advertisement appeared and it also does not prove that defendant No.1 is the owner of the mark PARAMOUNT. In the month of July, 2005, the defendant No.1 came in contact with plaintiff looking for a job and requested the plaintiff to allow her to teach English subject in his coaching institute as she was in dire need of financial assistance to carry on her livelihood. The plaintiff allowed the defendant No.1 to take English Classes in his coaching centre. He was a bachelor and earning handsome amount at that time.

After expiry of approximately 8-9 months, defendant No.1 expressed her willingness to get married with the plaintiff. She confirmed that she was spinster and unmarried; her father had expired and there was an old widow mother having six daughters and one brother. Believing upon her statement, the plaintiff got married with defendant No.1 on 12th March, 2006. After the marriage, as alleged by the plaintiff, she started hatching a conspiracy to get inducted her sisters and family members in Coaching Centre of the plaintiff and on her insistence, the proprietorship concern, namely, Paramount Coaching Centre was converted into a Private Limited Company, i.e. defendant No.3. She was inducted as a Director of defendant No.3 and thus, both the husband and wife have shareholding to the extent of 50:50. The plaintiff prior to incorporation of defendant No.3 also formed an educational society in 2007 under the name ‘Paramount Zenith Society’.

6. The main reason for the present litigation is that defendant No.1 who is the wife of the plaintiff incorporated another company being the Director of defendant No.3-Company under the name of K.D. Campus Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.2). She is the founder and director of the company for the purposes of competing with defendant No.3. The said company of defendant No.2 was incorporated by defendant No.1 in February, 2015 for the purposes of competing with and diverting the business, staff, students and monies of defendant No.3. It is also involved in imparting education, training and preparation for various national examinations.

7. The pla