Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 9082
DELHI HIGH COURT
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD – Appellant
Versus
MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR. – Respondent
CS(COMM)-98_2023
The entitlement of a plaintiff to a refund of court fees where the dispute is settled privately between the plaintiff and the defendants without the intervention of any ADR mechanism.
Headnote:
DESIGN - INFRINGEMENT - SETTLEMENT - COURT FEES - REFUND - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff, V Guard Industries Ltd., filed a suit against the Defendants, MS Mahavir Home Appliances and Anr., for infringement of their registered design for ceiling fans. The parties amicably resolved the dispute and filed a joint application for settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Finding of the Court:
The Court noted that the dispute had been settled and that the terms of settlement were lawful and in order. The Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and directed the parties to remain bound by its terms.
Issues: The Court considered the issue of the extent to which the plaintiff would be entitled to a refund of court fees where the dispute was settled privately between the plaintiff and the defendants without the intervention of any Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court referred to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, which entitles the plaintiff to a refund of the entire court fee deposited where the dispute is settled under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Section 89 of the CPC envisages settlement through arbitration, mediation, judicial settlement including Lok Adalat, and mediation – in other words, settlement by Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms.
Final Decision: The Court referred the issue of the extent of court fees to be refunded to the plaintiff to a Division Bench for adjudication, considering the conflicting Division Bench judgments of the Delhi High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C. Subramaniam.
CS(COMM) 98/2023
Page 1 of 11
$~29
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+
CS(COMM) 98/2023, I.A. 3531/2023, I.A. 14582/2023, I.A.
16345/2023 and I.A. 25081/2023
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD
..... Plaintiff
Through:
Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Ajay
Kumar, Mr. Manan Mondal, Mr. Rohit
Pradhan, Ms. Prashansa Singh and Mr.
Ashna Narang, Advs.
Versus
MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES
AND ANR. & ANR.
..... Defendants
Through:
Mr. Rajat Bhalla and Mr.
Sivaraman Vaidyanathan, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER (ORAL)
%
14.12.2023
CS(COMM) 98/2023
1.
The dispute between the parties stand amicably resolved and the
terms of settlement have been placed on record in an application i.e.
IA 25081/2023 jointly filed by the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The terms of settlement
read thus:
“i.
The Defendants hereby recognize the Plaintiff as the
proprietor of the registered design under no. 330602-001 in class
25-04 for ceiling fans, having the exclusive right to the use of the
aforementioned design;
ii.
The Defendants undertake to refrain themselves, their
directors, proprietors, partners, their assignees in business,
distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers, servants and agents from
manufacturing, marketing, selling, or distributing any ceiling fans
bearing a design that is identical or deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff's registered design;
Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT BARARIA
Signing Date:18.12.2023
18:54:54
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 98/2023
Page 2 of 11
iii.
The Defendants affirm that there are no existing stocks of
ceiling fans under the impugned design available with them;
iv.
The Defendants state that they have discontinued all
production
and
destroyed
all
the
stationery,
packaging,
promotional and publicity material, and labels and moulds under
the impugned design;
v.
The Defendants confirm that they have not filed any
proceedings against the Plaintiff before any Court/Tribunal or
authorities except that Defendant No. 1 has filed a Cancellation
Petition dated 03.01.2023 before the Controller of Patent and
Design & Trade Marks, Kolkata on 04.01.2023 against the
Plaintiff’s registered design under no. 330602-001 in class 25-04
for ceiling fans. The Defendant No. 1 undertakes to withdraw the
Cancellation petition within a period of 1 week post recording of
the present settlement;
vi.
The Defendant No. 1 further undertakes to withdraw its
design application under no. 371134-001 in class 25-04 for ceiling
fan;
vii.
The Defendants would never challenge the rights of the
Plaintiff in its design / copyright for those said products of the
Plaintiff being the subject matter of the present suit, either directly
or indirectly;
viii.
The Plaintiff is foregoing the costs and damages as sought
in the plaint at the request of the Defendants;
ix.
The abovementioned undertakings have been tendered by
Sh. Naresh S. Jain, i.e. Partner of Defendant No.1 and authorized
signatory of Defendant No.2 and the same shall be binding on the
Defendants, their partners, directors, or proprietor as the case may
be, their assignees in business, licensees, franchisee, distributors,
agents, servants and dealers for all times to come. The Defendants
acknowledge that in case of breach of settlement, the Defendants
shall be liable to contempt proceedings.”
2.
Parties are represented by learned Counsel, who undertake on
behalf of the respective clients to remain bound by the terms of the
settlement.
Digitally Signed
By:ROHIT BARARIA
Signing Date:18.12.2023
18:54:54
Signature Not Verified
CS(COMM) 98/2023
Page 3 of 11
3.
I have perused the terms of settlement and find them to be
lawful and in order.
4.
As the dispute stands settled, the controversy does not survive
for consideration on merits.
5.
The suit accordingly stands decreed in terms of the aforesaid
settlement at which the parties h
