IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Uttam Chand Rakesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Derco Foods - Respondent
CS(OS) 149 of 2020 & I.A. 4818 of 2020
Decided On : 27-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defamation claims and injunctions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. out-of-court settlement resolution (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. application approval process (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. withdrawal of suit (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
IA No. 9019/2021 (u/O XXIII R 1 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)
1. The plaintiffs claim to be market leaders in the Tree Nut Industry, specialising in import and sale of dry fruits, especially almonds and engaged in the business for over 42 years, thereby establishing a goodwill and reputation in the industry. Plaintiffs are said to be having an international presence and conduct business in various countries including United States of America, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and they were carrying business with defendant No. 1 herein.
2. According to plaintiffs, during the course of transactions between plaintiffs and defendants some dispute arose and the contract was cancelled, however, defendants on 02.06.2020 published and shared with 1450 entities across the world, defamatory content against the plaintiffs. Another defamatory content was issued by the defendants against the plaintiffs on 22.06.2020.
3. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking, inter alia, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants from publication of false, misleading and defamatory content pertaining to the plaintiffs and damages on account of the said publication.
4. Today, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that an out of Court settlement has been arrived resolving the controversy between the parties and this is how this application under the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Sec. 151 CPC has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the dispute inter se parties stand resolved in terms mentioned in the Settlement Agreement dated 01.06.2021 and in terms thereof, parties shall enter into a stipulated judgment in the proceedings before United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Further submitted that in terms of settlement, the plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw the present suit.
6. Hence, it is prayed that plaintiffs be permitted to withdraw the present suit. Further prayed that since the settlement falls under the ambit of Section 89 CPC and therefore, the eligible fee be refunded.
7. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that plaintiffs be permitted to withdraw the present suit, while giving liberty to file an application seeking refund of court fees.
8. I have gone through the contents of the application. The application in hand is duly signed by plaintiffs No. 1, 3 & 4 and is also supported with their affidavits and on behalf of plaintiff Nos.2 & 3 as well.
9. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the present suit, while giving liberty to plaintiffs to file separate application seeking refund of court fees.
10. The application is accordingly disposed of.
CS(OS) 149/2020 & I.A. 4818/2020
11. In view of orders passed in IA No. 9019/2021, plaintiffs are permitted to withdraw the present suit.
12. The present suit and pending application are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
A court may permit withdrawal of a suit if parties reach an amicable settlement, allowing for a request for refund of court fees under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The court upheld the right of the parties to withdraw the suit following an out-of-court settlement, in line with the Settlement Agreement and Section 89 CPC.
A court may record a settlement and decree a suit when the terms are lawful under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Mutual settlement of disputes allows parties to withdraw claims under Order XXIII Rule 3, leading to court decreeing the suit based on agreed terms.
The amicable settlement of trademark infringement disputes is recognized and enforced by the court, leading to dismissal of the case as withdrawn without evidence on merits.
The court's decision was based on the settlement between the parties, which led to the withdrawal of the suit and refund of court fees.
Trademark protection requires proof of exclusive use, and a valid settlement can lead to court fee refunds upon amicable resolution of disputes.
The court upheld the settlement agreement as lawful and binding, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
A civil suit can be disposed of as withdrawn upon the recording of a lawful settlement agreement between the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Point of Law : Infringement of trade mark - Amicably settlement between parties - Court has gone through terms of settlement incorporated in Settlement Agreement and same is found to be valid and law....
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.