Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
VINIT DUA – Appellant
Versus
PRASHANT MANI TRIPATHI & ORS. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 225/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Ms. Shambhav Pandey
For the Respondents: Ms. Vishwender Verma, Ms. Shivali, Ms. Ekta Tomar
The court emphasized that parties cannot re-agitate issues previously settled without appropriate challenge, affirming the plaintiff's rights over trademarks amid ongoing liquidation proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 151 - Dismissal of suit - Defendants sought dismissal citing ongoing liquidation proceedings in relation to the Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. under the NCLT - The plaintiff asserted ownership of trademarks and challenged the connection to the liquidation - Court maintained that defendants could not re-agitate settled issues without proper challenge to earlier rulings. (Paras 4-10)
(B) Ownership of trademarks - The court found no evidence linking the plaintiff with the Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. - Past findings affirmed the plaintiff's rights over trademarks involved, dismissing defendants' claims. (Paras 7-9)
(C) Costs imposed on defendants - Conditions for cost waiver considered; unconditional apology tendered by defendant no.1 resulted in waiver of additional costs stipulated earlier. (Paras 10-12)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defendants assert liquidation issues regarding trademark ownership. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. court affirms plaintiff's trademark rights against defendants' claims. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. waiver of additional costs granted after defendant's apology. (Para 10 , 12) |
O R D E R
% 11.07.2025 I.A.16192/2025-By defendants for unconditional apology and waiver of cost
1. After some arguments, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendant no.1 is present in person and is willing to tender an unconditional apology to this Court. He, then, seeks to withdraw the present application.
2. The present application is dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A. 13713/2023-For dismissal of the present suit
3. Vide the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ), the defendants seek dismissal of the present suit.
4. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that one Company Petition No.(IB)786(PB)/2018 entitled Anurag Chandra v. Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. is pending before the Principle Bench, National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for liquidation of Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel further submits that the said Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. is actually controlled by the plaintiff as evinced by the bills/ receipts filed by the plaintiff, and in light of the suppression of the liquidation proceedings by the plaintiff, as also by virtue of Section 63 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 whereby a Civil Court is precluded from entertaining any suits/ proceedings the subject matter whereof the NCLT has jurisdiction over, the present suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposes the present application and submits that none of the averments made by the learned counsel for the defendants hereinabove have any nexus with the facts and circumstances of the present case. As per learned counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the rightful owner of the trademarks involved vide the Assignment Deed dated 01.08.2018 which is forming a part of the record and has already been examined by this Court on 21.04.2023, whereafter an ad interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants on the said date. Pursuant thereto, affidavits of compliance with the aforesaid order have also been filed by the defendants as recorded in orders dated 19.03.2024 and 24.05.2024 passed by this Court, pursuant whereto the application under Order XXXIX rule 2A of the CPC filed by the plaintiff has been disposed of. Most importantly, there is nothing on record to establish any connection between the plaintiff and Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. and, as has been stated clearly in the replication filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not a party to the afore- mentioned proceedings before the NCLT. Based thereupon, learned counsel prays that the present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties at substantial length, as also gone through the pleadings and documents on record.
7. On a perusal of the order dated 21.04.2023, this Court finds that all preliminary objections raised by the defendants to the Assignment Deed dated 01.08.2018, such as the date of the Stamp Paper as well as the date of payment of consideration involved have already been looked into by this Court and thereafter answered in favour of the plaintiff, wherein it has been clearly held that it is now the rightful owner of the trademarks involved. Thereafter, the defendants, without challenging the said order dated 21.04.2023 have in fact also filed the affidavits of compliance therewith. The same is also clear from the subsequent orders dated 19.03.2024 and
24.05.2024 passed by this Court.
8. Be that as it may, there is nothing on the record to establish any nexus between the plaintiff and Affinity Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd. While it is true that the Assignment Deed dated 01.08.2018 was executed between the pl
