Alberto Culver Company vs R.K. Vijay And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 513 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the plaint a representation is made by the plaintiff that defendants No. 1 to 3 are engaged in the business of similar/allied cognate goods as that of plaintiff, namely, the sale & trade of various types of cosmetics and personal care products. It is also stated in paragraph 19 that defendant No. 3 is marketing and selling the impugned goods through defendants No. 1 and 2 in Delhi besides other parts of India, who are its dealers, distributors and stockists. In the light of the aforesaid statement, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been arrayed as defendants in the present suit.

2. On service of summons, defendants No. 1 and 2 have entered appearance and they have case categorically stated in their written statement filed that the said two defendants, namely, defendants No. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the defendant No. 3. It is also stated that none of the aforesaid defendants have neither purchased the products of the plaintiff nor of the defendant No. 3.

3. From the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, it is, therefore, established that defendants No. 1 and 2 have no business connection with defendant No. 3. That is the specific stand taken in the written statement, Except for making a bald statement of the aforesaid nature in the aforesaid paragraphs 18 and 19, there is no other supporting evidence placed on record to indicate that the said defendants has at any point of time any actual business between themselves. Therefore, in my considered opinion the stand taken by the defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement that there is no cause of action as against the said defendants is established. Upon going through the pleadings of the parties. I am of the considered opinion that there is no cause of action made out by the plaintiff in the present suit as against the defendants No. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the plaint filed as against the said defendants seeking relief as against the said defendants stands rejected in view of applicability of provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The names of the said defendants are, therefore, struck out from the array of parties.

4. The suit shall proceed only as against defendant No. 3. An amended memo of parties shall be filed by the plaintiff within a week.

5. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC Along with the suit be listed for arguments on the next date.

6. Renotify on September 20, 2004.