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.
Tata Sons Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Bharat Bhushan Udiniya - Respondent
CS(COMM) 408 of 2020 & I.A. 8803 of 2020
Decided On : 22-12-2021




Mutual settlement of disputes allows court to dispose of suits as per the Settlement Agreement and entitles plaintiffs to complete court fee refunds under established legal precedents.

Headnote:(A) Trademark Act - Infringement of trademark and designs, passing off, unfair competition, and refund of court fees - The parties mutually settled their disputes, and a Settlement Agreement was incorporated, leading to the disposal of the suit in terms of the Agreement dated 07.12.2021. Court directs refund of court fees. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Settlement of disputes - Parties agreed to binding terms of a Settlement Agreement, reflecting mutual resolution rather than court determination. (Paras 3-6)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement, which was referred for mediation. The parties reached a settlement, signed on 07.12.2021, leading to the court's disposal of the suit in accordance with the agreement.

Findings of Court:
The plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the entire court fee, guided by previous decisions acknowledging refunds when disputes are amicably settled.

Issues: Whether the suit should be disposed of in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and if the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of court fees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that when parties amicably settle their disputes, the court can dispose of the case based on that agreement and may order a refund of court fees, referencing precedents that support such outcomes.

Result: Suit disposed of as per Settlement Agreement; plaintiff entitled to full court fee refund.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's suit filed for trademark infringement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. counsel agrees to terms of settlement. (Para 4 , 5)
3. suit disposed of in terms of settlement. (Para 6 , 7 , 10)
4. entitlement to refund of court fees affirmed. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trade mark and designs, passing off; unfair competition; damages and delivery up against the defendants.

2. Vide order dated 17.08.2021, the matter was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN) for making an effort to amicably resolve the 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 07.12.2021, which is duly signed by both the sides/parties. The aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 07.12.2021 has come on record.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants submits that the defendants undertake to abide by the terms of aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 07.12.2021.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits the terms of settlement are incorporated in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 07.12.2021 and the present suit be disposed of in terms thereof.

6. Accordingly, the present suit is disposed of in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 07.12.2021. Needless to say, parties shall remain bound by the terms thereof.

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

8. A Division Bench of this Court in Nutan Batra v. M/s. Buniyaad Associates, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12916, while relying upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24, 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 v. Kiran Madan and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8021: 2019(2) RLR 4 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.

9. 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.

10. In view of above, present suit and pending applications 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