The court's decision emphasized the importance of settlement agreements and the liberal interpretation of Section 89 CPC for the refund of full court fee.

JUDGMENT

Mukta Gupta, J. - Ia No.3370/2022 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC)

1. By this application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the plaintiff and the defendants, namely, VHM (Varsha Health Medicine), Krypton Pharmaceuticals and MBS Formulation impleaded as defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 seek decree of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

2. Taking on record the settlement, application is disposed of.

CS(COMM.) 535/2021

1. Plaintiff and defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have entered into a settlement on the following terms and conditions as noted in para 2 of the Ia No.3370/2022 are as under:

'I The Defendants above named hereby recognizes the Plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trade mark PaNTOCID having the exclusive right to the use of the aforementioned trade mark in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products;

ii. The Defendants undertake to refrain themselves, their proprietors/partners, its assignees in business, its distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers/chemists, servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned mark PaNTOCIDE or any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark PaNTOCID amounting to infringement of registered trade mark under no.791979;

iii. The Defendants state that there are no existing stocks of finished products under the impugned mark PaNTOCIDE available with them;

iv. The Defendants state that they have destroyed all the stationery, packaging, promotional and publicity material and labels under the impugned mark;

v. The Defendant No.2 & 3 confirm that they shall destroy the packaging material which was seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner during the execution of the local commission on 30.10.2021, in the presence of the Plaintiff's representative over video conferencing;

vi. all batch details of the impugned product under the impugned mark PaNTOCIDE and its variants are disclosed as under:

vii. The Defendants confirm that they shall not file any application for registration of any trade mark, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark PaNTOCID and will not challenge the rights of the Plaintiff in its trade mark/labels either directly or indirectly;

viii. The Defendants have computed the profits made by them from the sales of medicine under the impugned mark, which comes to INR 4.59 lakhs. The Defendant has deposited the said amount as token costs by way of a demand draft under no.000758 dated 05.01.2022 with the Plaintiff;

ix. The Defendants hereby agree that the Plaintiff shall not be liable in any manner whatsoever, whether legal or otherwise arising from the goods provided by the Defendants under the impugned mark and the Defendants shall indemnify and hold harmless the Plaintiff from any cost or claim of damages arising from it;

x. The abovementioned undertakings have been tendered by Sh. Manoj Kumar Sah, authorized Signatory of all the Defendants and the same shall be binding on the Defendants, their assignees in business, franchisees, licensees, distributors, dealers and agents for all times to come.'

2. The settlement agreement is duly signed by the constituted attorney of the plaintiff as also the authorized signatory of the defendants Mr Manoj Kumar Sah. The constituted attorney of the plaintiff has also filed the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff and his affidavits and necessary authorization are already on record. authorization letters in favour of Mr Manoj Kumar Sah on behalf of the defen