Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6581
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
ASICS CORPORATION – Appellant
Versus
TRV SPORTS SHOES LIMITED – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1180/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Indraneil Choudhury
For the Respondents: Mr. Parth Bajaj
The Court upheld mediation agreements and their binding nature under Section 89 of the CPC.
Headnote:This judgment concerns a suit for permanent injunction regarding trademark infringement. The parties successfully mediated their disputes, resulting in a Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025. The Court is satisfied that this settlement, as per Section 89 of the CPC, is lawful, as it fulfills the requirements set forth in Order XXIII Rule 3. Consequently, the suit is decreed in accordance with the Settlement Agreement.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case involves trademark infringement mediation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. settlement agreement reached with minimal obligations. (Para 4) |
| 3. court validates and enforces mediation outcomes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court decrees according to settlement, dismisses other claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
O R D E R
% 29.08.2025
1. The present suit is filed seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain infringement of trademark, passing off, damages etc.
2. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2025 referred the parties to mediation under the aegis of Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre [‘Mediation Centre’]. The mediation has resulted in successful settlement of disputes.
3. Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025 executed between the parties before the Mediation Centre has been received from the registry and is placed on record.
4. Learned counsels for the parties states that after the execution of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025 there is no outstanding executory obligation, which is to be performed on the part of the Defendants.
4.1. They state that the Defendants have paid nominal damages to the Plaintiff in terms of the clause 6(c) of the Settlement Agreement dated Page 1 of 3
28.08.2025.
4.2. They state that the Defendants have agreed to suffer a decree in terms of the prayer clause at para 61 (a) (i) to (v) of the plaint.
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendants and perused the Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025.
6. The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd.1 while dealing with the Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has observed that a settlement agreement executed through the process of mediation should be placed before the Court for recording it and disposing of the suit in its terms. And, while doing that the Court should apply the Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and make a decree in terms of the settlement in regard to the subject matter of the suit, to make such settlement effective.
7. This Court is satisfied that the compromise contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025 is lawful and satisfies the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. Therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in decreeing the underlying suit in terms of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025.
8. The statements and undertaking given by the learned counsel for the parties are accepted by this Court and the parties are held bound by the same.
9. Consequently, the captioned Suit is decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025 executed between the parties and in terms of the prayer clause at para 61 (a) (i) to (v) of the plaint. The remaining reliefs are dismissed as not pressed.
Page 2 of 3
10. The Registry of this Court is directed to prepare a decree in terms of this order and it is directed that the Settlement Agreement dated 28.08.2025 shall form part of the said decree.
Refund of the Court Fees
11. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff requests for refund of Court fee in view of the settlement arrived between the parties through the process of mediation.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the registry is directed to refund 100% Court Fee in favour of Plaintiff within six (6) weeks, in accordance with law. The said direction has been passed having regard to Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, read with Section 89 of CPC.
13. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
14. All future dates stand cancelled.
