Continuous violation of court orders and failure to comply with directives can lead to injunction and compensation.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, (Oral) J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present is a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, as also damages, in respect of the Plaintiff's trademark and logo 'Banyan Tree School'. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants herein continue to use the name 'Banyan International School' for their school situated in Jammu & Kashmir, despite five years having lapsed since they gave an undertaking to the Court to not use the said mark.

3. This dispute traces back to arbitration proceedings instituted by the Plaintiff against their ex-franchisees - the Defendants, seeking dissolution of the franchise agreement and restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiff's mark. The award passed in the said proceedings dated 15th December, 2012, gave the following directions:

'1. Respondent, its employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns are restrained from in any manner using/ advertising/offering admission to students by using the trade mark 'The Banyan Tree School' and the Banyan Tree School Logo or any other trade mark or name including 'The Banyan International School' similar to the claimant's trade mark either as a trademark or part of the trade mark, a trade name or corporate name or as part of a trade or corporate name, or in any other manner whatsoever so as to pass off its services as and for the services of the claimant and infringe the registered trade mark of the claimant.

2. Respondent is restrained from admitting students to the school by using the claimant's school name being 'The Banyan Tree School' and/or 'The Banyan Tree International School' and / or The Banyan Tree School logo in any other manner by showing any affiliation with the claimant, whatsoever.

3. Claimant is entitled to receive and respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,11,72,250/- (One Crore eleven Lac Seventy Two Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty), as adjudicated above along with interest thereon @15% per annum from the date of the award till its realization by claimant. "

4. The said award was assailed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by the Defendants. Finally, vide order dated 23rd August, 2017 passed in O.M.P. 38/2013 titled Ram Krishan & Sons Charitable Trust v. Shaurya Education Trust and O.M.P. 238/2013 titled Shaurya Education Trust v. Ram Krishan & Sons Charitable Trust, it was clearly recorded by the Court that the Defendants had agreed to change the name of the school from 'Banyan International School' (earlier known as 'Banyan Tree School') to 'Shaurya International School'. The state of J&K had also given its no objection certificate for the said name change. In this background, the Court had directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter, CBSE) to take steps as per law within a week from the date of the said order. The relevant portion of the said order dated 23rd August, 2017, reads as under:

'Learned counsel for the State of J&K has today placed on record a copy of the 'No Objection Certificate' whereby the Directorate of Education has on 19.08.2017, consented to change of the name of the school being run by the respondent under the name of the school 'Banyan International School' to Shaurya International School'.

It may be noted that the parties have agreed that in terms of the award of the learned Arbitrator, in case the respondents complies with the direction nos. 1 and 2 of the award dated 15.12.2012, the petitioner will not press for the claim no. 3 relating to payment of dues/ damages.

Learned counsel for the respondent reiterates that in view of the fact that now, the State of J&K has given the 'No Objection Certificate', they would henceforth, subject to appropriate steps by CBSE, will not use the brand name 'Banyan International School' and will use the name 'Shaurya International School'.

I may note that this Court on 03.08.2015, had directed the CBSE to remain present in Court. The counsel for the