IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
M/s Gufic Biosciences Limited - Appellant
Versus
M/s Saarvasri Herbs Private Limited & Ors. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 559 of 2023
Decided On : 06-11-2023
Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC - Settlement of Dispute - The court decreed the suit as the disputes between the plaintiff and Defendant 1 were settled, and the terms of settlement were acknowledged by Defendant 1. The court ordered a decree-sheet to be drawn up accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff and Defendant 1 jointly applied for the suit to be decreed as the disputes between them were settled, with Defendant 1 acknowledging the exclusive proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in the mark 'SALLAKI' and its various formatives.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute did not survive for consideration between the plaintiff and Defendant 1, and decreed the suit in favor of Defendant 1 in terms of the settlement.
Issues: The issues involved the settlement of the dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant 1, and the application for interlocutory injunctive reliefs against Defendant 4.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the terms of settlement and the acknowledgment by Defendant 1, and concluded that the dispute did not survive for consideration between the parties.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of Defendant 1 in terms of the settlement, and ordered a decree-sheet to be drawn up accordingly.
JUDGMENT (Oral
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
I.A. 20914/2023 (Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC)
1. By this joint application, the plaintiff and Defendant 1 pray that the suit may be decreed as the disputes between them stand settled. The terms of settlement read thus:
"a. The Defendant No. l acknowledges the exclusive proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in the mark "SALLAKI" and its various formatives;
b. The Defendant No. 1 shall immediately and permanently discontinue manufacture/stocking/sale/use of any goods bearing similar mark/packaging/get-up as that of the Plaintiff's and use, if any, of the trademark "SALLAKI", its logo/device and or any other mark/name that is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark, and
c. The Defendant No. 1 undertakes that the Defendant shall neither by itself nor through its principal officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers, importers, exporters, etc., manufacture, sell, offer for sale, advertise, assist, market or deal in any goods bearing similar mark as that of the Plaintiff or bearing the mark /label /logo /writing style which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark /label /logo /writing style "SALLAKI" and shall also not assist anyone in doing so.
d. The Defendant No. l undertakes not to apply for registration of any mark/logo/label/packaging, which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trade mark /label /logo /writing style "SALLAKI" and/or its logo/device and for packaging/ get-up similar to that of the Plaintiff's packaging/get- up and also undertakes to withdraw any such application, if so, filed by the Defendant No. l;
e. The Defendant No. l undertakes to furnish statement of account demonstrating the sale of product within l5 (Fifteen) days and thereafter, exhaust its stocks within next 45 (Forty-Five) days of the date of the orders of the Hon'ble Court accepting and approving the compromise and settlement between the Parties to the above Suit.
f. The Plaintiff agrees to give up the claim against the Defendant No. l as made in the present Suit. However, if the Defendant No. l either by itself or through its principal officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers and anyone acting for and, on its behalf, is found is breach of the above settlement terms, the Plaintiff shall be entitled to recover from the Defendant No. 1 liquidated damages in addition to taking fresh actions available under law against the Defendant No. 1;
g. The Plaintiff agrees to delete the Defendant No.1 from the array of parties in the present Suit."
2. This matter was last listed 3 November 2023 on which date Defendant 1, who was an elderly gentleman, was present in person. He vouchsafed the fact that the dispute between the plaintiff and Defendant 1 had indeed been settled in accordance with the afore- noted terms of settlement.
3. As such, the dispute does not survive for consideration between the plaintiff and Defendant 1.
4. The suit shall stand decreed qua Defendant 1 in terms of the afore-noted terms of settlement, by which the parties shall remain bound.
5. Let a decree-sheet be drawn up by the Registry accordingly.
I.A. 15313/2023 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)
6. This is an application by which the plaintiff seeks interlocutory injunctive reliefs. Pleadings in this application are complete.
7. The application survives for consideration only qua Defendant 4.
8. Accordingly, list this application for hearing and disposal on 20 November 2023.
I.A. 20223/2023 (Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC)
9. This is an application by the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
10. Mr. Bhandari does not oppose the application.
11. The application is allowed.
I.A. 20915/2023(Order I Rule 10 of the CPC)
12. This is an application by which the plaintiff seeks to delete Defendants 2 and 3 from the array of parties. The said defendants already stand deleted from the array
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.
Enforceability of settlement agreement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
The court upheld settlement agreements acknowledging the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the trademark, prohibiting the defendants from using similar marks, and reaffirming the binding nature of such....
Enforcement of settlement terms and direction to cancel infringing marks by the Trade Marks Registry
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 has the authority to examine and decree a suit based on the terms of settlement between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
Settlement agreements can resolve disputes and lead to the decree of a suit in terms of the settlement.
Settlement agreements under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC can lead to the decreeing of a suit in accordance with the terms of the settlement, effectively resolving the disputes 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.