Delhi High Court
M/S Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Safvolts Switchgears Pvt. ... on 1 September, 2015
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 1299/2013
M/S MEX SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through : Mr. Amit Jain and Ms.Babita,
Advocates
versus
M/S SAFVOLTS SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD. ..... Defendant
Through : Ms. Shivali Sinha and
Ms.Yamunah Nachiar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 01.09.2015
1. At the outset, counsel for the plaintiff states that during the
pendency of the present suit, the defendant company's corporate
name and trademark was changed and an amended memo of parties
reflecting the current corporate name of the defendant has been filed
and a copy is handed over to the other side.
2. Counsel for the defendant confirms the fact that the corporate
name of her client as also its trademark has changed. A copy of the
said amended memo of parties is taken on record.
3. Pursuant to the parties being referred to the Delhi High Court
Mediation & Conciliation Centre, a report dated 7.7.2015 has been
forwarded by the Mediator, enclosing therewith a Settlement
Agreement dated 22.5.2015.
4. Counsels for the parties state that the terms and conditions of
the settlement arrived at between the parties have been recorded in
para 6 of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.5.2015 wherein, the
defendant has stated that it has changed its corporate name, vide
Board Resolution dated 14.4.2015. A copy of the Board Resolution
and the approval letter from the ROC has been enclosed with the
Settlement Agreement. Further, the defendant has agreed not to use
the trademark, "MAX" or any other trademark that is identical/
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark, "MEX" that may
amount to infringement of its trademark. The defendant has also
given an undertaking to the effect that it is not in possession of any
goods bearing the trademark, "MEX/MAX" or any other deceptively
similar trademark.
5. Counsels for the parties state that in view of the settlement
arrived at between the parties, the suit may be decreed in terms of
the prayers made in para 34(a) to (d) of the plaint as the plaintiff does
not wish to press the reliefs prayed for in para 34(e) and (f) of the
plaint.
6. The Court has pursued the Settlement Agreement dated
22.5.2015. The same has been signed by the authorized
representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant, and their respective
counsels as also by the learned Mediator. Enclosed with the
Settlement Agreement, is the Board Resolution of the defendant
company and the approval letter issued by the ROC.
7. As counsels for the parties jointly state that their clients have
arrived at the aforesaid settlement of their own free will and volition
and without any undue influence or coercion from any quarters, there
appears no legal impediment in accepting the said settlement. The
parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the
settlement recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 22.5.2015.
8. The suit is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at and
recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 22.05.2015 and the
prayers made in para 34(a) to (d) of the plaint, while leaving the
parties to bear their own expenses.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view
of the fact that the parties have arrived at a settlement through court
annexed mediation, prior to the stage of framing of issues, the plaintiff
is entitled to claim refund of the court fees in terms of Section 16 of
the Court Fees Act.
10. In view of the aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the
plaintiff, the Registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the
plaintiff for refund of the court fees, as per law.
11. The suit is disposed of.
File be consigned to the record room.
HIMA KOHLI, J
SEPTEMBER 01, 2015
mk/ap
