IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Windlas Biotech Ltd & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 302 of 2022 & I.A. 7290 of 2022, I.A. 7291 of 2022, I.A. 17788 of 2022, I.A. 6858 of 2023, I.A. 10812 of 2023
Decided On : 01-06-2023
Settlement - Disputes between parties - Decree in terms of settlement
Fact of the Case:
The parties jointly filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC praying for the suit to be decreed in terms of the settlement, which included various conditions and confirmations by the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the terms of settlement to be lawful and in order, and as a result, nothing remained for adjudication in the present suit. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement, and the plaintiff was entitled to a complete refund of court fee, if any.
Issues: Disputes between parties, terms of settlement, decree in terms of settlement, refund of court fee
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lawful and in order terms of settlement agreed upon by the parties, which led to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement and the disposal of miscellaneous applications.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement, and the plaintiff was entitled to a complete refund of court fee, if any.
ORDER (Oral)
I.A. 10812/2023 in CS(COMM) 302/2022
1. The disputes between the parties stand settled and the present application has been jointly filed by them under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC praying that the suit be decreed in terms of the said settlement. The terms of the settlement read thus:
"i. The Defendants state that there are no existing stocks of finished products under the impugned mark PANTRACID and its extensions thereof available with them;
ii. The Defendants state that they have destroyed all the stationary, packaging, promotional and publicity material and labels under the impugned mark being PANTRACID and its extensions thereof;
iii. The Defendants confirm that apart from the batches of the impugned product under the mark PANTRACID and its extensions thereof, no other batches have been manufactured or sold by the Defendants. The Defendants confirm that below are the batches which have not yet expired and are currently in the market under the impugned mark. The said batch details are as follows:
| Impugned Product/forms | Batch No. |
| PANTRACID GEL | WPG21001 |
| PANTRACID GEL | WPG21002 |
| PANTRACID GEL | WPG22001 |
| PANTRACID MPS SUSPENSION | TBHU1553 |
| PANTRACID MPS SUSPENSION | TBHU1554 |
| PANTRACID MPS SUSPENSION | TBHU1530 |
| PANTRACID MPS SUSPENSION | TBHV0531 |
| PANTRACID MPS SUSPENSION | TBHV0532 |
| PANTRACID MPS SUSPENSION | TBHV0533 |
| PANTRACID DSR CAPSULES | BHC-2106075 |
| PANTRACID DSR CAPSULES | WPC21001 |
| PANTRACID DSR CAPSULES | WPC22001 |
| PANTRACID DSR CAPSULES | WPC22002 |
| PANTRACID DSR CAPSULES | WPC22003 |
iv. The Defendants confirm that they shall destroy all kinds of packaging, publicity, advertisement and promotional material bearing mark PANTRACID and its variants in the presence of the Plaintiff's representative;
v. The Defendant further confirm that they have directed removal of all the listings, bearing the impugned carton and inner foil packaging and its variants on their website or other social media handles, over which they have direct control;
vi. Defendant confirms that the Defendant has not filed any trade mark and/or copyright application for impugned carton and inner foil packaging and its variants in India and/or abroad.
viii. Defendant confirm that it shall not use, manufacture, trade, sale, offer to sale, advertise, marketing the products under trademark PANTRACID and its variants.
viii. Defendant confirm that it shall not cause to use, manufacture, trade, sale, offer to sale, advertise, marketing the products under trademark PANTRACID and its variants.
ix. The Plaintiff is foregoing costs and damages as sought in the plaint at the request of the Defendants."
2. The Court has perused the terms of settlement and find them to be lawful and in order.
3. In view of the aforesaid terms of settlement, nothing survives for adjudication in the present suit.
4. The suit accordingly stands decreed in terms of the aforesaid terms of settlement by which learned Counsel for the parties agreed that their clients would remain bound.
5. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. Miscellaneous applications are also stand disposed of.
6. The plaintiff would be entitled to complete refund of court fee, if any, deposited by it.
The court can decree a suit in terms of a settlement agreed upon by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The court emphasized the importance of private settlement negotiations, allowing parties who reach such agreements to benefit from court fee refunds under Section 89 CPC.
The court upheld the settlement reached under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC, recognizing the plaintiff's rights and binding the parties to the agreed terms.
The court upheld the settlement agreement and decreed the suit in accordance with the terms of settlement, thereby recognizing the proprietary rights of the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress.
The court upheld the settlement agreement as lawful and binding, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
Settlement of disputes and acknowledgment of terms of settlement by the parties can lead to the court decreeing the suit in favor of the settling party.
Settlement agreements under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC can lead to the decree of suits and resolution of disputes, binding the parties to the terms of the agreement.
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.