Karnataka High Court
M/S Clasek Fine Chemicals Private ... vs M/S Hitek Fine Chemicals Private ... on 26 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29470-DB
COMAP No. 12 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 12 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. M/S CLASEK FINE CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,
29/68, 16TH CROSS, GOPALAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, LAKKASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560 030, REP. BY ITS DIRECTORS.
2. MOHAMMAD QUAISAR REJA,
29/68, 16TH CROSS, GOPALAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE, LAKKASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560 030.
3. MOHAMMED NOOR,
S/O HAMZA ALI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 5 1ST CROSS, LAKKASANDRA,
Digitally
signed by ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030.
PRAMILA G V ...APPELLANTS
Location: (BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
M/S HITEK FINE CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED,
NO.10, FIRST FLOOR, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
ADUGODI, NEAR MICO FACTORY,
BANGALORE -560030.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT, PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29470-DB
COMAP No. 12 of 2024
1. CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN COM.O.S. NO. 424/2020
ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL
COURT) AT BENGALURU (CCH-88).
2. SET ASIDE THE EX-PARTY JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 03.10.2022 IN COM.O.S.NO.424/2020 ON THE FILE OF
THE LXXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
(EXCLUSIVE DEDICATED COMMERCIAL COURT) AT BENGALURU
(CCH-88), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
3. GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER/JUDGMENT AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This appeal is arising from the judgment and decree
dated 31.10.2022 in Commercial O.S.No.424/2020 passed by
LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, wherein the
defendants are restrained from using the Trade Marks specified
NC: 2024:KHC:29470-DB
in operative portion of the judgment and decree. The
defendants are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,50,000/-
towards damages on account of loss of sales, reputation and
goodwill of the plaintiff. No interest is awarded on the said
amount.
3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent made a statement that in case,
the appellants use the Trade Mark as and they
undertake not to use the Trade Marks which are mentioned in
the operative portion of the impugned judgment and decree,
the respondent will have no objection for such use of the Trade
Mark by the appellant No.1 -Company.
4. It is also the submission of the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent that the respondent is willing to
accept Rs.4 lakhs as damages as against Rs.5,50,000/-
awarded by the trial Court, provided the appellants undertake
to restrict their claim to use the Trade Mark without
infringing the right of the plaintiff/respondent.
NC: 2024:KHC:29470-DB
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has filed an
affidavit on behalf of the appellants and affidavit is signed by
the authorised signatory of the appellant No.1-Company.
6. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the
authorised signatory of the appellant No.1-Company. The
appellants have undertaken not to use the Trade Mark referred
to in the operative portion of the impugned judgment and
decree and have restricted their claim only in respect of one
Trade Mark which is mentioned in the affidavit and
the copy of the proposed Trade Mark annexed to the said
affidavit. Since the terms and conditions mentioned in the
affidavit are agreeable to the respondent, this Court is of the
view that the impugned judgment and decree are to be
modified as per the undertaking given by the appellants.
7. We have also noticed that the appellants have
sought four months time to pay Rs.4 lakhs towards damages to
the respondent toward full and final satisfaction of the claim by
the respondent. It is also noticed that in the event of default,
the appellants have not undertaken to pay any interest. This
NC: 2024:KHC:29470-DB
Court is of the view that in the event of default, appellants have
to pay interest @ 9% per annum on amount of Rs.4 lakhs
which is agreed to be paid to the respondent.
8. Under these circumstances, impugned judgment
and decree are modified as under:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated
31.10.2022 in Commercial O.S.No.424/2020
passed by LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge,
Bangalore are modified.
(iii) The appellants are restrained from using the
Trade Marks mentioned in the operative portion
in the impugned judgment and decree.
(iv) Appellants are permitted to use the proposed
Trade Mark which is annexed to the
affidavit.
(v) Appellants shall seek for cancellation of the
Trade Marks which are prohibited to be used
by the appellants in terms of the impugned
judgment and decree which are registered
under Application No.4628575.
NC: 2024:KHC:29470-DB
(vi) The appellant shall also pay Rs.4 lakhs towards
damages within 4 months from today and in
the event of default, appellants are liable to
pay 9% interest on the said amount to the
respondent from this date till realisation.
(vii) Appellants shall move necessary application for
cancellation of the registered Trade Marks
mentioned in the operative portion of the
judgment and decree of the trial Court.
(viii) The respondent shall return the cheque which
is issued by the appellant No.1 Company in
favour of the respondent during the pendency
of execution proceeding on receipt of Rs.4
lakhs agreed to be paid by the appellants.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
GVP
