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.
Aditya Infotech Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Sumcon India - Respondent
CS(COMM) 660 of 2019 & I.A. 17049 of 2019
Decided On : 23-11-2021




A valid Settlement Agreement reached through mediation can lead to a decree of the suit, and plaintiffs may be entitled to a refund of court fees when disputes are amicably resolved.

Headnote:(A) Trademarks Act - Sections relating to infringement and passing off - Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against defendants for trademark infringement and damages - Parties mutually settled disputes via Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2021, deemed valid and lawful by the court. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Court Fees - Entitlement to refund of court fees acknowledged based on prior judgments. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against trademark infringement by the defendant. Following mediation, the parties settled their disputes, and the terms were incorporated into a valid Settlement Agreement.

Findings of Court:
The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement and directed the refund of court fees to the plaintiff based on established legal precedents.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of the Settlement Agreement and entitlement for court fee refund.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the Settlement Agreement was valid, leading to the decree of the suit as per its terms, and affirmed referral cases regarding the refund of court fees upon amicable settlement.

Result: Present suit decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.11.2021.

Table of Content
1. filing of suit for injunction and settlement (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. counsels' acceptance of settlement terms (Para 4 , 5)
3. validation of settlement agreement and court fee refund principles (Para 6 , 10)
4. conclusion and decree in favor of settlement (Para 7 , 8 , 12)
5. entitlement to refund of court fees upon settlement (Para 9 , 11)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

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

2. Vide order dated 17.01.2020, 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