Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
Wellness Health Labs (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Wellness Pathcare India Llp & Anr. - Respondents
fao 106 of 2020
Decided On : 02-03-2020
Caveat - Discharge of Caveat - The court directed the appellant to file a written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC within 10 days, and the respondent to file replication as well as rejoinder within one week thereafter. The trial court was directed to dispose of the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on the next date of hearing or as soon as possible thereafter.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged an order restraining them from using the mark 'Wellness Health Lab' and an adjournment of their application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The respondent claimed that the appellant had adopted a deceptively similar mark after being an employee of the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the appellant to file a written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC within 10 days, and the respondent to file replication as well as rejoinder within one week thereafter. The trial court was directed to dispose of the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on the next date of hearing or as soon as possible thereafter.
Issues: Impugning of the order restraining the appellant from using the mark 'Wellness Health Lab' and the adjournment of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for both parties to file necessary documents and for the trial court to expedite the disposal of the pending applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with directions for the filing of documents and the trial court to expedite the disposal of the pending applications. The court clarified that it had not considered or commented upon the merits of either party.
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CAV. 198/2020
In view of the appearance of the respondents, the caveat stands discharged.
CM APPL. 8535/2020 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
FAO 106/2020 & CM APPL. 8534/2020 (stay)
1. Appellant impugns order dated 04.02.2020 whereby appellant has been restrained from using the mark ‘Wellness Health Lab’ and also impugns order dated 15.02.2020 whereby an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the appellant has been adjourned to 20.03.2020.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant had already filed a caveat which was served on the respondent and despite service of caveat, they failed to serve the appellant prior to filing of the Suit. He further contends that there is non-compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC as also the fact that when the appellant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the same was adjourned to 20.03.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice submits that ad-interim injunction was granted because appellant who was an earlier employee of the respondents had recently adopted a deceptively similar mark. He further contends that compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC has been done in terms of order dated 04.02.2020 and he further submits that no notice of caveat was served on the respondent.
4. Without getting into controversy, since the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, filed by the respondents as well as the application Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the appellant are pending and listed before the trial court on 20.03.2020, this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the appellant to file the written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC within 10 days and respondent may file replication as well as rejoinder to the applications Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC within one week thereafter.
5. Trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on the next date of hearing or as soon as possible thereafter.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
7. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor commented upon the merits of either party.
8. Order dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
