SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, HIMA KOHLI, VIPIN SANGHI, VALMIKI J.MEHTA, VIBHU BAKHRU
Carlsberg Breweries A/S. – Appellant
Versus
Som Distilleries and Breweries Ltd. – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Plaintiff:Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.A. Brijesh, Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Ms. V. Mohini and Mr. Udayvir Rana, Advocates
For the Plaintiff:Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy and Mr. Rupin Bahl, Advocates
For the Defendant:Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Devyani Nath, Ms. Kaveri Jain and Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Advocates
For the Defendant:Mr. Rohan Alva, Mr. Reshabh Bajaj, Mr. Ankit Kaushal and Mr. Sushant Singh, Advocates
For the Defendant:Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta. R. Jha, Ms. Shrutima and Mr. Pranav Narain, Advocates
For the Defendant:Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Independent Counsel Assisting the Court in terms of order dated 26.7.2018

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.—The reference to this larger, Special Bench of five judges, was occasioned by the detailed speaking order of a learned Single Judge, in the present suit, which sought the reliefs of infringement of design and a decree for injunction against passing off. The learned Single Judge, by the order dated 02.05.2017, referred the question as on the whether the decision in Mohan Lal v. Sona Paint, 2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del) (FB) - hereafter “Mohan Lal” on the aspect of maintainability of a composite suit in relation to infringement of a registered design and for passing off, where the parties to the proceedings are the same needs re-consideration by a larger bench in the light of Order II Rule 3 CPC, which permits joinder of causes of action. The decision in Mohan Lal (supra) was by a Full Bench of three judges. During the pendency of this reference the dispute inter parties was rendered moot due to a mutually acceptable settlement; nevertheless this court was requested to hear and decide the issue, on account of the importance of the subject matter.

2. We had the benefit of the draft judgment by Valmiki. J. Mehta, J. We agree with his conclusions as well as his an











































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top