Delhi High Court
Sanjay Gupta vs Deepak Gupta And Ors. on 12 October, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. No. 1365/2014
% 12th October, 2015
SANJAY GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sumit Bansal, Advocate with
Mr. Ateev Mathur, Ms. Richa Oberoi
and Mr. A.P.S. Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK GUPTA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Advocate
with Mr. Karan Bajaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On a first reading of the pleadings in the present petition under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it appeared that the
respondents were acting unfairly, however, after hearing the counsels for
both the parties it is found that whereas the respondents have rectified their
mistakes, and it is the petitioner who is however acting in a totally unfair and
unacceptable way. What is this unfairness and unreasonableness of the
petitioner, I am stating hereinafter.
O.M.P. No. 1365/2014 Page 1 of 6
2. By this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, the following reliefs are prayed:-
"a. By granting ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the
respondents, their agents, representatives, dealers and other
persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling
or otherwise dealing in PVC electrical wires and cables by
describing them to be "from Plaza Group" or "Plaza Group
of Companies" or by using the word "Plaza" as part of their
trading style on any of the products which has not fallen to
the share of the respondents or by deceiving he public at
large by highlighting other products manufactured by
respondent no.1 through its various companies by stating
"Our other Plaza Products";
b. By passing ex-parte orders appointing Receiver to inspect
the premises of the respondent no.1 including the premises
as provided in Annexure P-9 and/or any other premises
where the infringing products manufactured and marketed
are stored and sold.
c. cost of proceedings; and
d. grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts of the present case."
3. Both the parties concede that they are bound by various
agreements which were entered into for dividing the joint businesses etc
between them, and some of the clauses of the second Agreement dated
26.09.2009 which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are
Clauses 11 to 14, and which read as under:-
"11. It has been agreed by "DG" that "DG" would not use
"Plaza Group" & Logo on wire boxes.
O.M.P. No. 1365/2014 Page 2 of 6
12. It has been agreed between the parties that "SG" shall use
the "PLAZA" brand of Trade Mark and its logo in the entire
range of electrical wire, cables and other products listed in
assignment deed dated 16.4.2009. "SG" shall use the "PLAZA"
brand of trademark and its logo in the aforesaid products
exclusively and to the exclusion of others and "DG" has no
objection.
13. It has been agreed that "DG" shall use the "PLAZA"
brand of trademark and its logo only on four products as per
assignment deed dated 26.05.2009, i.e (i) PVC conduit Pipes,
(ii) Electrical Accessories, (iii) PVC Tapes and (iv) MCBs.
"DG" shall use the 'PLAZA' brand of Trade Mark and its logo
in the aforesaid four products only exclusively and to the
exclusion of others and "SG" has no objection.
14. It has been agreed that neither of the parties shall use the
word "Plaza group" or "Plaza Group of Companies" on any of
its products."
4. Surely it cannot be disputed in view of the aforesaid Clauses 11
to 14, and is not disputed by the respondents, that respondents will not use
the expression "Plaza Group" or "Plaza Group of Companies" on any of
their products, but, petitioner further prays for the additional relief that
respondents should not even show photographs of the products which are
manufactured by them and which they are entitled to do so in terms of the
settlement agreements entered into between them. Admittedly, as per the
Settlement Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated
26.5.2009, the respondents were entitled to manufacture four items being:-
a) PVC Conduit Pipes;
O.M.P. No. 1365/2014 Page 3 of 6
b) Electrical Accessories;
c) PVT Tapes; and
d) MCBs
The respondents are putting photos of only such products on the packages.
5. Since the respondents can manufacture the aforesaid four
products in terms of the Settlement Agreement/MOU dated 26.5.2009,
respondents therefore on their boxes/packaging are putting photographs of
the products which they are entitled to manufacture and sell in terms of the
agreements between the parties. Petitioner contends that even this the
respondents cannot do because that will amount to effectively showing that
the respondents are describing themselves as "Plaza Group" or "Plaza Group
of Companies".
6. In my opinion, the petitioner is being less than fair and is acting
mala fide in taking up the stand that the respondents cannot put photographs
of even the products they are entitled to manufacture by their companies
though the respondents are admittedly entitled to do so under the Settlement
Agreement/MOU dated 26.5.2009.
7. Surely, it is not open to the petitioner to question the actions of
the respondents once the respondents are not using the expression "Plaza
O.M.P. No. 1365/2014 Page 4 of 6
Group" or "Plaza Group of Companies" and are simply showing the
photographs of the products manufactured by their companies on the
boxes/packaging. The agreements between the parties, be it the Agreement
dated 26.9.2009, or the earlier Agreement/MOU dated 26.5.2009 cannot
prevent the respondents from putting photographs of products being
manufactured by the respondents because this right is the legitimate right of
the respondents and the contrary stand of the petitioner will lead to an
unnecessary strained reading of the agreement between the parties and
which is sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner, and which
interpretation the Court categorically rejects. So far as this relief prayed is
concerned, the same is dismissed noting that if I allow the prayer of the
petitioner in this regard it will amount to restraint of trade against the
respondents from fairly carrying out their business by depicting products of
the companies under the same management.
8. In view of the above, so far as the objection which pertains to
respondents in using the expression "Plaza Group" or "Plaza Group of
Companies" on their boxes/packaging is accepted, and which is accepted in
view of the statement of the counsel for the respondents that they are not
going to use these expressions, however, on account of the fact that the
O.M.P. No. 1365/2014 Page 5 of 6
petitioner is most unfairly seeking further reliefs of preventing the
respondents from even using photographs of the products on their boxes
which they were entitled to manufacture in terms of the Settlement
Agreement/MOU dated 26.5.2009, this relief prayed for is rejected with
costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only). Costs shall be paid within a
period of four weeks from today.
9. Petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations.
All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
OCTOBER 12, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
nn
