IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.09.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Contempt Petition No.267 of 2021

1. Quintessential Designs India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Chief Executive Officer, Mr.Syed Layak Ali, 5th Floor, Status Quo, 38, Streling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034.

2. QD Seatoman Designs Pvt. Ltd.

Rep. By its Director Mr.Syed Layak Ali, 5th Floor, Status Quo, 38, Streling Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600034. ...Petitioners Vs

1.Puma Sports India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. By Authorised Signatory Mr.Madhuresh Singh No.509, CMH Road, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 038.

2.Puma SE Represented by Authorised Signatory Mr.Rahul Sethi Puma Way 1, 91074 Herzogenaurach, Germany. ...Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein for the willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 24.01.2020 in C.S.No.215 of 2015.

For Petitioners : M/s.Nithyaesh and Vaibhav For Respondents : Mr.Arvind Pandian Senior Counsel for R2 Mr.A.R.Ramanathan for R1

ORDER

This Contempt Petition is filed alleging that the order of this court dated 24.01.2020 in C.S.No.215 of 2015 has been deliberately disobeyed by the respondents. In the counter filed, it is stated that in pursuant to the direction of this court, the statement of accounts is submitted to this court in a sealed cover as per the modified order dated 13.07.2020. However, it is strongly contended by the learned counsel for the contempt petitioners that the sealed cover submitted to this court on behalf of the first respondent cannot be presumed to contain the statement of accounts of both the respondents.

2. In response to this submission, the learned counsel for the respondents states that earlier, the learned Single Judge of this court has clarified that the statement of accounts of respondents 1 and 2 need not be in two separate covers and further, in the counter, it is submitted that the second respondent cannot file any account much less separate account for the products pertaining to two styles. The only manner in which the 2^nd respondent said to comply with the order dated 24.01.2020 is to the accounts of the 1^st respondent pertaining to its product therein, the two style numbers. However, this court is clear in its order that any product sold anywhere in the world carrying the disputed two designs/styles, the account should be rendered. The 2^nd respondent can either plead that the accounts of the business is available in the sealed covers or make a plea that in the separate account for the product pertaining to two styles need not be filed by the 2^nd respondent.

3. Now the 2^nd respondent has taken both the pleas which are inconsistent to each other. Only on opening the sealed cover, the real fact whether the accounts of the 2^nd respondent is furnished to this court or not will come to light.

4. Hence, this court for the present, close the contempt petition with liberty to the petitioner herein to revive the petition at later point of time after the sealed cover is open. It is made clear that the order of this court dated 24.01.2020 is to get the details of the sale particulars of these two styles sold by the 1^st respondent as well as by the 2^nd respondent.

08.09.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gv Dr. G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

gv Contempt Petition No.267 of 2021

08.09.2022