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.
DS Confectionery Products Limited - Appellant
Versus
Mahadev Confectionery - Respondent
CS(COMM) 169 of 2020 & I.As. 4409 of 2020 and 5087 of 2020
Decided On : 31-08-2021




Settlement agreements reached through mediation are binding and enforceable, and parties are entitled to court fee refunds when disputes are amicably resolved.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections on infringement, copyright, trade dress, and passing off - The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction against defendants for infringement of trade mark and related claims. The matter was referred to mediation and the parties later settled their disputes, resulting in a valid Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2021, which was accepted by the court. (Paras 1-8)

(B) Court Fees - The plaintiff requested a refund of the entire court fee based on Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding the refund in settled matters. The court, aligning with previous rulings, ordered the refund of court fees to the plaintiff. (Paras 9-11)

(C) Mediation - The court emphasizes the importance of amicable resolution of disputes through mediation, as achieved in the present case. (Paras 2, 3)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants seeking various reliefs related to trademark and copyright infringement. The parties settled their disputes through mediation, which was formalized in a legal agreement.

Findings of Court:
The court found the Settlement Agreement to be valid and decreed the suit in terms of the agreement.

Issues: The main issues centered around the validity of the Settlement Agreement and the refund of court fees in light of settled matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once parties mediate and settle amicably, as done here, the terms of the Settlement Agreement are binding, and full court fees are refundable based on established legal precedents.

Result: The suit is decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement and the court fee is refunded.

Table of Content
1. settlement agreement validity (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' agreement to terms (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's finding on court fees refund (Para 6 , 10 , 11)
4. court's decree in terms of settlement (Para 7 , 8 , 12)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trade mark, copyright, trade dress, layout, colour combination, get up, passing off, unfair trade practice, rendition of accounts of profit, delivery up, damages, etc.

2. Vide order dated 06.10.2020, 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 22.11.2021, which is duly signed by both the sides/parties. The aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2021 has come on record.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits the terms of settlement are incorporated in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2021 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 22.11.2021.

6. This Court has gone through the contents of the mediated Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2021 and find it to be valid and lawful.

7. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in terms of Settlement agreement dated 22.11.2021, 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 22.11.2021.

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