JUDGMENT

Kirpal, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellant and respondent are pharmaceutical companies manufacturing various pharmaceutical products. The two companies had taken over the assets and business of the erstwhile Cadila Group after its restructuring under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act. One of the conditions in the scheme of restructuring of the Cadila Group was that both the appellant and the respondent got the right to use the name "CADILA" as a corporate name.

3. The present proceedings arise from the suit for injunction which had been filed by the appellant against the respondent in the District Court at Vadodara. The suit related to a medicine being sold under the brand name " Falcitab" by the respondent which, according to the appellant, was a brand name similar to the drug being sold by it under its brand name "Falcigo".

4. The case of the appellant was that its drug "Falcigo" contains Artesunate for the treatment of cerebral malaria commonly known as Falcipharum . After the introduction of this drug, the appellant on 20th August, 1996 applied to the Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad for registration in Part-A, Class-5 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. On 7th Oc