CS(OS) No.13/2005 Page 1 of 8

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(OS) NO.13/2005

Date of Decision : 08.10.2010

AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD.

…… Plaintiff

Through: Mr.Dhruv Bhagat, Advocate

Versus

M/S GOINDWAL SAHIB VANASPATI MILLS

…… Defendant

Through: Mr.

Shailen

Bhatia,

Advocate.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

YES

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

NO

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported

in the Digest ?

NO

V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)

IA No.15053/2008(u/O VII Rule 10 CPC)

1.

This order shall dispose of the suit as well as an application

of the plaintiff under Oder 7 Rule 10 CPC for return of the

plaint so as to enable the plaintiff to file the same in

appropriate Court and also extending the interim order dated

7.1.2005 so as to enable the plaintiff to draw the benefit of

the restraint order.

2.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a

suit for infringement of trademark, Copyright and passing off

2010:DHC:5096

CS(OS) No.13/2005 Page 2 of 8

against the defendant. It was alleged that the plaintiff was a

company

incorporated

in

the

year

1940 and

was

manufacturing for selling Vegetable oils, milk and milk

products. It is alleged that the business of Vanaspati and

dairy milk was being conducted in poly packs with the

trademark GAGAN.

3.

The registration in respect of the aforesaid edible items were

obtained in 1974 and 1992 pertaining to Vanaspati oil and

various types of milk and milk products respectively. It is

alleged that the defendant is using the mark GANGA which is

deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff apart from adopting

somewhat similar color scheme with different shades.

4.

On the basis of these allegations, the matter came up for the

first time on 7.1.2005 when this Court had issued summons

to the defendant and also passed an ex parte ad interim

injunction against the defendant restraining them from using

the mark GANGA in any manner whatsoever in respect of its

products of Vanaspati etc. This ex parte ad interim injunction

order has continued till date.

5.

The defendant had put in appearance and filed its written

statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff.

6.

On 21.2.2006, issues were framed and the plaintiff was given

two weeks’ time to file the list of witnesses and four weeks’

time for the purpose of filing the affidavits by way of evidence.

More than five years have elapsed and not even a single

affidavit has been filed during all these years. On the

contrary, the plaintiff continued to file applications, one after

2010:DHC:5096

CS(OS) No.13/2005 Page 3 of 8

other, which showed that it wanted to delay the disposal of

the main suit itself.

7.

On 12.11.2007, the plaintiff’s application for amendment was

allowed. Thereafter, no affidavit by way of evidence has been

filed and the present application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC

has now been filed in the year 2008 contending that this

Court does not have the jurisdiction on account of

arrangement of various businesses of the sister concern

under which the branch office of the erstwhile plaintiff

company has been closed in Delhi.

8.

An application under Oder 7 Rule 10 CPC was filed on

24.11.2008 wherein it was stated that Amrit Corporation Ltd.

and its sister concern have undergone a scheme of

arrangement under which the name of the plaintiff company

has been firstly changed to M/s Amrit Corporation Ltd. and

fresh certificate of incorporation dated 26.6.2007 was issued

b