$~46 & 47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 596/2018& I.A. 3537/2011 HSIL LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Mithil Malhotra and Mr. Aryan Pandey, Advocates versus SANJAY AGGARWAL AND ANR .....Defendants Through: Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, Advocate along with defendant no. 1 (through vc) 47 + RFA-IPD 1/2022&CM APPLs. 10464-65/2013, 13843/2013 M/S HSIL LIMITED .....Decree Holder Through: Mr. Manav Gupta, Mr. Sahil Garg, Mr. Abhinav Jain, Mr. Mithil Malhotra and Mr. Aryan Pandey, Advocates versus M/S CHAMPION CERAMIC .....Judgement Debtor Through: Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal (through vc)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025 CS(COMM) 596/2018

1. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off and other ancillary reliefs against the defendants.

2. Learned counsels for the parties state that parties have arrived at a settlement and defendants have agreed that the suit can be disposed of by passing a decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) at paragraph ‘31’ of the plaint.

3. Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal/defendant no. 1 has joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing link and is identified by his counsel.

4. Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal/defendant no. 1 has also filed his affidavit dated 21.11.2025, which records his willingness to suffer a decree of permanent injunction at paragraph ‘6’ of the said affidavit.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 states that defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of all claims for legal costs in these proceedings.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in view of the settlement, the plaintiff is not pressing its remaining reliefs at prayer clauses (c), (d),(e) and (f) at paragraph ‘31’ of the plaint.

7. He states that plaintiff has agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in full and final settlement of its legal costs.

8. This Court has heard the learned counsels of the parties and also perused the affidavit dated 21.11.2025, which records the defendant no. 1’s willingness to suffer a decree of permanent injunction. The compromise/settlement is lawful and therefore, there is no impediment in decreeing the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

9. In view of the aforesaid, there seems to be no contest between the parties, the suit is decreed for the relief of permanent injunction in terms of paragraph 31(a) and (b) of the plaint, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The remaining prayers are disposed of as not pressed.

10. In addition, the defendant no. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff towards legal costs within a period of four (4)

weeks from today.

11. The Registry of this Court is directed to prepare a decree in terms of this order.

12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

13. Future dates, if any, stand cancelled.

RFA-IPD 1/2022

14. Learned counsels for the parties submit that, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties as recorded in CS(COMM) 596/2018, the present appeal may also be disposed of.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent states that respondent has agreed that the appellant is entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- deposited with the registry along with the interest accrued thereon in full and final settlement of all its claims towards legal costs.

15.1. The respondent has also filed an affidavit dated 21.11.2025 recording his agreement for release of the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- at paragraph ‘8’ of the affidavit, in favour of the appellant.

15.2. The Registry is directed to release the aforesaid deposited amount along with interest accrued thereon in favour of the plaintiff, within two (2)

weeks.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent states that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, respondent fur