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

2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1613

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
ASHOK SHARMA AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
ANIL SHARMA AND ANOTHER – Respondent
MA 76 / 2025



##PAGE1##

Serial No. 148

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

MA No. 76/2025

Dr. Ashok Sharma and others

…..Appellants

Through: Mr. Vikram Sharma, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sachin Dev Singh, Advocate &

Mr. Irfaan Khan, Advocate

Vs

Anil Sharma and another.

.…. Respondents

Through: Mr. Sunil Sethi, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Paras Gupta, Advocate,

Mr. Ravi Abrol, Advocate &

Mr. Parimoksh Seth, Advocate.

Mr. K. S. Johal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, Advocate.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

ORDER

(30.12.2025)

1. Through the medium of this order, this Court is

granting disposal to the present appeal preferred under the

spell of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The respondent – Anil Sharma, the plaintiff has

preferred a civil suit filed by him before the court of learned 2nd

Additional District Judge, Jammu wherein the respondent –

Anil Sharma is seeking a decree of declaration, decree of

permanent prohibitory injunction and decree of mandatory

injunction all independent to each other against the four

##PAGE2##

2 MA No. 76/2025

defendants, three of whom are the appellants herein whereas

the fourth defendant is the proforma respondent in the present

appeal.

3. In the civil suit, the respondent-Anil Sharma is

claiming the reliefs as under:-

i. Pass a decree of declaration declaring that the

plaintiff is the prior, continuous and exclusive user of

the trade name/trade mark "SDDM Hospital" in

respect of hospital and healthcare services conducted

at the suit premises since the year 2014, and that the

defendants have no right, title or interest therein;

ii. Pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction

restraining the defendants, their agents, servants,

employees, representatives, licensees or any other

person acting for or on their behalf, from using the

trade name/ trade mark “SDDM Hospital” or any

other name or mark identical with or deceptively

similar thereto, in relation to hospital or medical

services, in any manner whatsoever, within the Union

Territory of Jammu & Kashmir or such other area as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit;

iii. Pass a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction

restraining the defendants from in any manner

interfering with, intruding upon or dealing with the

management, administration, staff, machinery,

equipment, records, finances or day-to-day operations

of the plaintiff’s hospital, namely SDDM Hospital,

situated at Channi Himmat, Jammu.

iv. Pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the

defendants to forthwith return and restore all

machinery, medical equipment and other hospital

assets unauthorizedly removed from the plaintiff’s

hospital;

v. Pass a decree of injunction restraining the defendants

from threatening, intimidating, coercing or influencing

##PAGE3##

3 MA No. 76/2025

the doctors, nursing staff, employees or any other

persons associated with or working at the plaintiff’s

hospital;

vi. Award costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff; and

vii. Grant such other or further reliefs, including incidental

and consequential reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may

deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

4. Accompanying his said civil suit is an application

preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 wherein the respondent – Anil Sharma has

sought issuance of temporary injunction for restraining all the

four defendants, their agents, servants, representatives and all

persons acting through or under them from entering,

interfering with or operating the respondent-Anil Sharma’s

hospital premises at Channi Himmat, Jammu or in any manner

interfering with the management, administration, staff,

machinery, equipment and records of the respondent’s hospital

and further asking for temporary injunction restraining said

four defendants, their agents, servants, representatives and all

persons acting through or under them from using the name

and style as “SDDM Hospital” or any name deceptively similar

to the respondent-Anil Sharma’s hospital until the final

disposal of the suit.

##PAGE4#

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
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 Back to top