The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant No.1, as a lineal male descendant of late G.D. Rathi, was bound by the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and the Trust Deed, and had not disclosed any right to issue licenses for the use of the trademark 'RATHI' by outsiders.

JUDGMENT :

[Via Video Conferencing]

ASHA MENON, J.

FAO(OS) (COMM) 119/2020, CM Nos.24330/2020 (for stay), 24331/2020 & 25167/2020 (both for placing on record additional facts & documents) AND FAO(OS) (COMM) 122/2020, CM Nos.24341/2020 (for stay), 24342/2020 & 25183/2020 (both for placing on record additional facts & documents)

1. These are two first appeals filed against a common judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15th September, 2020 disposing of two interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), in two suits filed against the defendants for infringement of trademark of the plaintiff. The appellants are two of the defendants in the suits, whereas the respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge restrained all the defendants, including the present appellants, from issuing licenses, manufacturing, exporting, marketing, offering for sale, selling, advertising or in any manner dealing in TMT Bars, Steel Bars, common metals, their alloys, metal building materials and several other products and goods of common metal under the trademark “RATHI” or adopting any other mark or label which is identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark “RATHI” amounting to infringement of registered trademark, passing off, dilution and unfair competition, during the pendency of the suits.

2. On 30th September, 2020, after hearing counsel, we directed as under:-

“11. It is therefore ordered that the appellants / defendants which are members of the Rathi family, during the pendency of these appeals, shall not renew, alter or change in any way any existing licence / licensee and shall not grant any new licences. A list of licences already granted along with copies thereof be also furnished to the counsels for the respondent / plaintiff and be filed in this Court.

12. On request of counsel for the appellants, instead of tomorrow, list on 5th October, 2020.

13. However it is made clear that the compensation in monetary terms in respect whereof undertaking would be required to be given, would be effective from tomorrow i.e. 1st October, 2020.”

3. On 6th October, 2020, the CM Application Nos.24330/2020 and 24341/2020 for stay were dismissed and the following order was passed-:

“9. Having considered the controversy, we are of the view that once the appellants/defendants, on the basis of their books of accounts, have computed the profits earned by them in the preceding three months at the rate of Rs.6.33 lakhs per month and have also put the rider that owing to the prevalent pandemic, the profits in the ensuing months are likely to be less, the offer of the respondent/ plaintiff will more than compensate the appellants/defendants for the losses suffered from non stay of the operation of the impugned judgment till the decision of the appeal.

10. As observed in the order dated 30th September 2020, once the Single Judge of this Court has granted an interim injunction, merely because the appeal is preferred, will not ipso facto lead to stay of the operation of the order of the Single Judge during the pendency of the appeal.

11. We thus accept the undertaking on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff Anil Rathi in his personal individual capacity, to, in the event of the appeal being allowed, within 15 days, deposit in this Court, an amount computed at the rate of Rs.20 lakhs per month including for the days of a month less than the complete month on pro rata basis, with effect from the order dated 29th September, 2020 and till the decision of the appeal. The disbursement of the said amount to the FAO (OS) (COMM) Nos. 119/2020 & 122/2020 Page 6 of 6 appellants/defendants shall however be subject to the orders, if any, in the further remedies, if any taken against the decision in the appeal.

12. The said undertaking of the respondent/plaintiff Anil Rathi is accepted