SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, J.
Living Media India Limited - Appellant
Versus
Abhishek Agarwal - Respondent
CS(COMM) 389 of 2020 & I.A. 295 of 2021
Decided On : 18-11-2021




A settlement agreement reached by parties in trademark disputes is valid and can lead to a decree in its terms, including the refund of court fees based on amicable resolution.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections concerning infringement and passing off - Settlement Agreement reached between parties - The parties mutually settled their disputes regarding trade mark issues as per the Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021, which was deemed valid by the court. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Court Fees - Refund of court fees allowed based on precedents establishing entitlement upon amicable settlement - The court noted previous decisions affirming the entitlement to refund when disputes are resolved amicably. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement, which was referred to mediation, resulting in a mutually signed Settlement Agreement.

Findings of Court:
The court decreed the suit as per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, determining its validity and ordering refund of court fees to the plaintiff.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the validity of the Settlement Agreement and the plaintiff's entitlement to a refund of court fees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found the Settlement Agreement to be valid, and based on prior court decisions allowed for the refund of court fees due to amicable resolution of disputes.

Result: Suit decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement; court fees to be refunded.

Table of Content
1. injunction and mediation settlement achieved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. terms of settlement agreed by both parties. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court validates settlement and considers court fees. (Para 6 , 10)
4. suit disposed as per settlement terms. (Para 7 , 8 , 12)
5. plaintiff entitled to refund of court fees. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trade mark, passing off, dilution, rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages, etc.

2. Vide order dated 29.07.2021, the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN) for making an effort to amicably resolve their disputes.

3. This court is informed that the parties have mutually settled their disputes and the terms of the settlement have been incorporated in Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021, which is duly signed by both the sides/parties. The aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021 has come on record.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits the terms of settlement are incorporated in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021 and the present suit be decreed in terms thereof.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants submit that the defendants undertake to abide by the terms of aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021.

6. This Court has gone through the contents of the mediated Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021 and find it to be valid and lawful.

7. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in terms of Settlement agreement dated 06.09.2021, which shall form part of decree. Decree sheet be accordingly drawn.

8. Needless to say, parties shall remain bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 06.09.2021.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff prays for refund of entire court fee.

10. On the aspect of refund of court fees, relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24, a Division Bench of this Court in Nutan Batra Vs. M/s. Buniyaad Associates, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12916 had allowed an appeal against the order of refusal of refund of entire court fee in a suit. Further, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Munish Kalra Vs. Kiran Madan and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8021 taking into account the fact that the dispute stands amicably settled between the parties, had relied upon decisions in Afcons Infrastructure Limited (Supra) and Nutan Batra (Supra) and directed refund of the entire court fees.

11. In view of aforesaid decisions, this Court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to refund of entire court fees. Registry is directed to issue necessary certificate/authorization in favour of the plaintiff to seek refund before the appropriate authorities.

12. In view of above, present suit and pending application are accordingly disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top