Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MUKTA GUPTA
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
VHM (Varsha Health Medicine) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J. (ORAL)
IA No.3370/2022 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC)
1. By this application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the plaintiff and the defendants, namely, VHM (Varsha Health Medicine), Krypton Pharmaceuticals and MBS Formulation impleaded as defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 seek decree of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.
2. Taking on record the settlement, application is disposed of.
CS(COMM.) 535/2021
3. Plaintiff and defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have entered into a settlement on the following terms and conditions as noted in para 2 of the IA No.3370/2022 are as under:
"I The Defendants above named hereby recognizes the Plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trade mark PANTOCID having the exclusive right to the use of the aforementioned trade mark in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical products;
ii. The Defendants undertake to refrain themselves, their proprietors/partners, its assignees in business, its distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers/chemists, servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal preparations under the impugned mark PANTOCIDE or a
The court emphasized the importance of private settlement negotiations, allowing parties who reach such agreements to benefit from court fee refunds under Section 89 CPC.
The court can decree a suit in terms of a settlement agreed upon by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC.
The court upheld the settlement agreement as lawful and binding, leading to the decree of the suit in terms of the settlement.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and enforcement of a lawful settlement between parties under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, leading to the decree in favor of the settling....
The acknowledgment of patent validity and early settlement entitles the plaintiff to a full refund of court fees under CPC Order XXIII Rule 3.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the lawfulness of the Settlement Agreement and the parties' undertaking to remain bound by its terms.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the effectiveness of a settlement agreement in resolving a trademark infringement dispute and leading to a decree in favor of the aggrieved part....
The court applied Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC to decree the suit in terms of the settlement reached between the parties.
The court upheld a consent decree based on a lawful settlement between parties regarding trademark and copyright rights, allowing for a refund of court fees.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
