Delhi High Court
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Vhm (Varsha Health Medicine) & ... on 2 March, 2022
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 2nd March, 2022
+ CS(COMM) 535/2021
SUN PHARMA LABORATORIES LTD ..... Plaintiff
Represented by: Mr Sachin Gupta, Ms Jasleen Kaur,
Mr Pratyush Rao, Mr Snehal Singh
and Ms Swati Meenu, Advocates.
versus
VHM (VARSHA HEALTH MEDICINE) & ORS. ..... Defendants
Represented by: Mr Arun Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
IA No.3370/2022 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC)
1. By this application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the plaintiff and
the defendants, namely, VHM (Varsha Health Medicine), Krypton
Pharmaceuticals and MBS Formulation impleaded as defendant nos.1, 2 and
3 seek decree of the suit in terms of the settlement arrived at between the
parties.
2. Taking on record the settlement, application is disposed of.
CS(COMM.) 535/2021
1. Plaintiff and defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have entered into a settlement
on the following terms and conditions as noted in para 2 of the IA
No.3370/2022 are as under:
"I The Defendants above named hereby recognizes the
Plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trade mark PANTOCID
having the exclusive right to the use of the aforementioned
Signature Not Verified
By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
trade mark in respect of medicinal and pharmaceutical
products;
ii. The Defendants undertake to refrain themselves, their
proprietors/partners, its assignees in business, its
distributors, dealers, stockists, retailers/chemists, servants
and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale,
advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in medicinal
preparations under the impugned mark PANTOCIDE or
any other trade mark as may be deceptively similar to the
Plaintiff's trade mark PANTOCID amounting to
infringement of registered trade mark under no.791979;
iii. The Defendants state that there are no existing stocks of
finished products under the impugned mark PANTOCIDE
available with them;
iv. The Defendants state that they have destroyed all the
stationery, packaging, promotional and publicity material
and labels under the impugned mark;
v. The Defendant No.2 & 3 confirm that they shall destroy
the packaging material which was seized by the Ld. Local
Commissioner during the execution of the local
commission on 30.10.2021, in the presence of the
Plaintiff's representative over video conferencing;
vi. All batch details of the impugned product under the
impugned mark PANTOCIDE and its variants are
disclosed as under:
Impugned Batch Mfg. date
Product No.
PANTOCIDE-L MFC- 26.08.2019
081919
PANTOCIDE- MFC- 20.05.2020
DSR 012049
PANTOCIDE MFC- 15.02.2021
02-04
MFC- 13.02.2021
02-04
MFC- 08.07.2019
Signature Not Verified
By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
051909
MFC- 05.10.2020
102067
MFC- 06.01
121947 .2020
MFC- 09.09.2020
092048
9897 08.07.2019
19 I-05 07.10.2019
19 I-23 09.10.2019
MFC- 14.05.2021
05-04
MFC- 25.06.2021
06-01
21 F-07 25.06.2021
MFC- 25.06.2021
06-01
MFC- 08.05.2021
05-04
MFC-- 06.04.2021
03-12
MFC-- 06.04.2021
03-12
MFC- 23.06.2021
08-11
vii. The Defendants confirm that they shall not file any
application for registration of any trade mark, which is
deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trade mark
PANTOCID and will not challenge the rights of the
Plaintiff in its trade mark/labels either directly or
indirectly;
viii. The Defendants have computed the profits made by them
from the sales of medicine under the impugned mark,
which comes to INR 4.59 lakhs. The Defendant has
deposited the said amount as token costs by way of a
demand draft under no.000758 dated 05.01.2022 with the
Signature Not Verified
By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
Plaintiff;
ix. The Defendants hereby agree that the Plaintiff shall not be
liable in any manner whatsoever, whether legal or
otherwise arising from the goods provided by the
Defendants under the impugned mark and the Defendants
shall indemnify and hold harmless the Plaintiff from any
cost or claim of damages arising from it;
x. The abovementioned undertakings have been tendered by
Sh. Manoj Kumar Sah, Authorized Signatory of all the
Defendants and the same shall be binding on the
Defendants, their assignees in business, franchisees,
licensees, distributors, dealers and agents for all times to
come."
2. The settlement agreement is duly signed by the constituted attorney of
the plaintiff as also the authorized signatory of the defendants Mr Manoj
Kumar Sah. The constituted attorney of the plaintiff has also filed the plaint
on behalf of the plaintiff and his affidavits and necessary authorization are
already on record. Authorization letters in favour of Mr Manoj Kumar Sah
on behalf of the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have been placed on record along
with the vakalatnama of the learned counsel for the defendant.
Consequently, the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at
between the parties as also the prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that since the settlement in
the suit was arrived at the initial stage itself, as summons in the suit were
issued on 27th October, 2021 and on the next date before this Court, the
parties stated that they have settled the matter and sought some time to place
on record the terms of settlement, full court fee be returned to the plaintiff in
terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2021) 3
Signature Not Verified
By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
SCC 560 High Court of Judicature at Madras Vs. M. C. Subramaniam &
Ors.
4. The Hob'ble Supreme Court in the above-noted decision held that
though in strict terms when settlement is arrived at between the parties by
not adopting a mode prescribed under Section 89 CPC, the party may not be
entitled to full court fee, however, Section 89 CPC has to be given a liberal
interpretation and thus in cases where settlement is arrived at out of court,
the full court fee be refunded. It was held:
"23. We find ourselves in agreement with the approach taken by the
High Courts in the decisions stated supra. The purpose of Section
69-A is to reward parties who have chosen to withdraw their
litigations in favour of more conciliatory dispute settlement
mechanisms, thus saving the time and resources of the Court, by
enabling them to claim refund of the court fees deposited by them.
Such refund of court fee, though it may not be connected to the
substance of the dispute between the parties, is certainly an
ancillary economic incentive for pushing them towards exploring
alternative methods of dispute settlement. As the Karnataka High
Court has rightly observed in Kamalamma, the parties who have
agreed to settle their disputes without requiring judicial intervention
Under Section 89 CPC are even more deserving of this benefit. This
is because by choosing to resolve their claims themselves, they
have saved the State of the logistical hassle of arranging for a third-
party institution to settle the dispute. Though arbitration and
mediation are certainly salutary dispute resolution mechanisms, we
also find that the importance of private amicable negotiation
between the parties cannot be understated. In our view, there is no
justifiable reason why Section 69-A should only incentivise the
methods of out-of-court settlement stated in Section 89 CPC and
afford step-brotherly treatment to other methods availed of by the
parties.
24. Admittedly, there may be situations wherein the parties have
after the course of a long-drawn trial, or multiple frivolous
Signature Not Verified
By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
litigations, approached the Court seeking refund of court fees in the
guise of having settled their disputes. In such cases, the Court may,
having regard to the previous conduct of the parties and the
principles of equity, refuse to grant relief under the relevant rules
pertaining to court fees. However, we do not find the present case
as being of such nature.
25. Thus, even though a strict construction of the terms of Section
89 CPC and Section 69-A of the 1955 Act may not encompass such
private negotiations and settlements between the parties, we
emphasize that the participants in such settlements will be entitled
to the same benefits as those who have been referred to explore
alternate dispute settlement methods Under Section 89 CPC.
Indeed, we find it puzzling that the petitioner should be so
vehemently opposed to granting such benefit. Though the
Registry/State Government will be losing a one-time court fee in
the short term, they will be saved the expense and opportunity cost
of managing an endless cycle of litigation in the long term. It is
therefore in their own interest to allow the Respondent No. 1's
claim."
5. Consequently, the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement noted
above. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of the settlement arrived at
between the parties.
6. Registry is directed to issue a certificate releasing full court fee to the
authorized attorney of the plaintiff.
IA No.13961/2021
1. Application is disposed of as infructuous.
2. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 02, 2022/MK
Signature Not Verified
By:JUSTICE
MUKTA GUPTA
