JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. By order dated 8th March, 2021 in IA No. 3133/2021, I had granted ad-interim relief to the plaintiff, by restraining the defendant from (i) selling, manufacturing, advertising, promoting or otherwise using the marks “76” or any other mark deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s trademarks “UNOCAL” or “76” with respect to goods falling under Class IV of the Schedule to the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 and (ii) continuing to proceed with Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-279, titled Philips 66 Company vs. Raaj Unocal Lubricants Ltd. pending before the United States District Court at the Southern District of Texas (“the Texas Court” in short).

2. The defendants have filed a response to IA No. 3133/2021 and have also filed IA No. 4316/2021 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking vacation of the ad-interim injunction order dated 8th March 2021.

3. At the request of learned Senior Counsel for the parties, I heard them, at length, in the first instance, on the aspect of continuance/vacation of the ad-interim anti-suit injunction order passed by me on 8th March, 2021. This judgment disposes of the said prayer.

4. Arguments were advanced, on t