The appellant failed to provide evidence of the amount payable, and the claim for damages due to defamation was not substantiated. The court also rejected the claim for interest and breach of contract.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application seeking condonation of 154 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

3. Application disposed of.

RFA 130/2021

4. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Dr. Amitabha Sen challenging the judgment / decree dated March 04, 2020, whereby the suit filed by the appellant for unlawful conspiracy, unlawful business practices, violation of public policy, defamation, fraud, misrepresentation, extortion, denigration, harassment, humiliation, breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, invasion of privacy and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, was dismissed.

5. The prayers made in the suit were primarily the following:-

'On the basis of the foregoing, the Plaintiff, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Hold the Defendants in breach of their contractual duty to pay and Pass a Decree against the Defendants to pay the Plaintiff the sum of ?10,00,000.00 (Ten Lakhs only), which includes the interest on the unpaid amount @18% per annum;

2. Award exemplary damages against the Defendants for their outrageous acts in the interest of justice, equity and as a way of example. The quantum of damages may kindly be determined in proportion to the Net Worth of the Defendants;

3. Report the outrageous acts of the Defendant No.10 to the Banking Regulatory Authorities for appropriate actions and sanctions;

4. Award costs in favor of the Plaintiff; and

5. Pass such further orders and / or grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.'

6. In effect, the suit of the appellant was primarily a suit for recovery of ?10 lakh with 18% interest and for award of damages, with a further prayer for taking action against the defendant No.10. The case of the appellant, as set up in the plaint was that the Respondent No.l, (Sportsworld International Ltd,) is a powerhouse in Sports and owns almost 400 retail stores in the U.K. and is present all over the world, through its subsidiaries and agents. It owns a large number of trademarks like "DUNLOP", "DUNLOP SLAGENZER", "D-DEVICE", "CARLTON LONDON" and "PANTHER & DEVICE" in India. The products are sold through licensees such as Spartan Sports India and Mayor International Limited. The "Carlton" products are handled in the Indian market through the Carlton Overseas Private Limited, Gurgaon.

7. On January 18, 2002, the appellant was retained by the agents of the Respondent No.l, to protect and promote the IP rights and interests in India. It has been stated that on May 08, 2006, appellant met respondent No.2 in Toronto, Canada and the Respondent No.2 instructed the appellant on behalf of Dunlop Slazenger Group to carry out a plethora of work for Dunlop Slazenger Group Limited (DSGL) and asked the appellant to undertake certain task for Respondent No. 3 (Integrated Brand Management Ltd (IBML) on behalf of Dunlop Slazenger Group Limited.

8. It was stated that appellant was instructed by Respondent No. 2 to file 31 Notices of Opposition against India Tyre & Rubber Company (India) Limited and the deadline for filing the same was on June 07, 2006. The governmental filing fees alone was close to USD 2,000.00/-, the appellant asked for payment of at least the costs for filing.

9. That on June 06, 2006, the respondent terminated appellant's retainer-ship from filing the Notices of Opposition. The appellant's claim was against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. According to him, their acts have caused the appellant loss of Professional Fees and immense harassment, defamation and humiliation.

10. It was stated, the appellant came to know that the 31 Notices of Opposition were filed by erstwhile Defendant No. 7 before the deadline, which was simply impossible to file, in a day after they were hired unless they had been working illegally in parallel, which is in violation of Rule 39 of the Bar Council of In