( 1 ) WHAT is challenged in these three Appeals from Orders which are filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code for short), are three separate orders all dated 15/09/1999 recorded below application Ex. 6, notice of motion, in Civil Suit No. 5319 of 1996, 5321 of 1996 and 5320 of 1996 by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Court No. 25, Ahmedabad, by which application Ex. 6, notice of motion, in all the aforementioned suits seeking ad-interim injunction under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code in terms of para 18 (a), (b) and (c) of the application till disposal of the suits moved by the respondent against the appellant came to be allowed and temporary injunction in terms of para 18 (a), (b) and (c) of the application is granted till final disposal of the suits on merits.

( 2 ) AS these three AOs involve determination of common question of law and facts, by the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matters are heard at length at admission stage and decided by way of final hearing by this common judgment.

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be advantageous to refer to the facts stated in AO No. 528 of 1999 which is arising out of Civil Suit No. 5319 of 1999.

( 4 ) APPELLANT is the defendant whereas respondent is the plaintiff and for the sake of convenience and brevity, they are referred to in this judgment hereinafter as plaintiff and defendant.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1913 and an existing company under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff carries on business inter alia of manufacturing two and four drive utility vehicles, tractors, farm equipments and parts and accessories thereof. The plaintiff was incorporated on 2/10/1945 with the name "mahindra and Mohammed Limited". The subscribers to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of "mahindra and Mohammed Limited" were Mr. K. C. Mahindra and Mr. Inam Mohammed who were the Promoters of the Company. The name was subsequently changed to "mahindra and Mahindra Limited" on 13/01/1948. The name of the plaintiff was adopted after its promoter, Mr. K. C. Mahindra.

( 6 ) THE word "mahindra" forms a prominent part and feature of the plaintiffs corporate name. It is also a registered trade mark of the plaintiff being registered under Registration No. 338997 in respect of goods in class 12 of the 4th Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (the Act for short ).

( 7 ) THE plaintiff is a flagship company of the "mahindra Group of Companies" in which 15 companies are included, namely: (i) Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited; (ii) Mahindra Exports Limited; (iii) Mahindra Steel Services Centre Limited; (iv) Mahindra Fort India Limited; (v) Mahindra Applied Systems Technology Limited; (vi) Mahindra Sintered Products Limited; (vii) Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products Limited; (viii) Mahindra Network Services Limited; (ix) Mahindra Information Technology Systems Limited; (x) Mahindra Realty and Infrastructure Developers Ltd; (xi) Mahindra USA Inc. USA; (xii) Mahindra Hellenic Auto Industries S. A. Greece; (xiii) Mahindra British Telecom Limited; (xiv) Mahindra Holdings and Finance Limited; (xv) Mahindra Acres Consulting Engineerings Limited.

( 8 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, the word "mahindra" is a registered trade mark owned by the plaintiff. The plaintiff carries on diverse activities and are engaged in industries and trade, manufacturing of car, jeep, tractor, motor spare parts, farming equipments, chemicals, hotels, real estate, exporter, computer software and computer system, etc. The annual turnover of the plaintiff and some of its group companies exceeds Rs. 3,000 crores. The money spent by the plaintiff on advertising and market development for the last ten years is about Rs. 900 crores.

( 9 ) ON account of high quality of products manufactured and sold by th