Madras High Court
Eureka Forbes Ltd vs Hindustan Lever Limited on 29 April, 2021
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and
A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No.191 of 2005
C.S.No.156 of 2005
Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
Anmol Palani, C & D-5, Level IV,
No.88, G.N.Chetty Road,
rep. By its Regional Head – Accounts(South),
Mr.N.Muralidhar Rao ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Hindustan Lever Limited.,
No.121, Santhome High Road,
(Entrance from South Canal Bank Road),
Chennai – 600 028. ...Defendant
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule I of the Original Side Rules r/w.
Order VII Rule I of C.P.C., praying as follows:-
a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
directors, executives, distributors, marketers, franchises, dealers, agents,
stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any
one claiming through or under them from referring to plaintiff's AquaSure
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
Storage Water Purifier, in any manner, either directly or indirectly, by means
of any allusion of insinuation in their Television Commercials, Newspapers
advertisement, Internet website publication, handouts, brochures, user
manual or any other promotional literature and/or publicity materials by
comparison of their Pureit Water purifying system with the plaintiff's
AquaSure water purifier by making indirect reference using the words
'leading storage based iodine filter' in the comparative data or any other
product of the plaintiff, amounting to disparagement of in any other manner
whatsoever.
b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
directors, executives, distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents,
stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any
one claiming through or under them from referring to plaintiff's AquaSure
Storage Water Purifier, in any manner, either directly or indirectly, by means
of any allusion of insinuation in their Television Commercials, Newspaper
advertisement, Internet website publication, handouts, brochures, user
manual or any other promotional literature and / or publicity materials, by
making comparison importing indirect reference as leading storage based
iodine filter thereby conveying a message to the public that the plaintiff's
AquaSure storage water purifier does not have the features, advantages,
efficiency of killing / removing viruses and bacteria or in any other manner
whatsoever.
c) the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiff a sum of
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
Rs.10,05,000/- as liquidated damages on account of the unfair business
practices adopted by it against a competitor namely, the plaintiff and drop in
sales of the plaintiff.
d) the defendant be ordered to surrender to the plaintiff for
destruction brochure, hand outs, user manuals, advertisements, CD's, print
materials, pamphlets, screen prints, promotional literature / schemes in any
media and such other materials containing the disputed comparison table.
e) the defendants be directed to render true and faithful accounts
of profits made by sale of Pureit water purifiers consequent to the
publishing of comparison table, which is complained by the plaintiff and a
final decree be passed in the favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits
thus found to have been made by the defendant, after the latter rendered
accounts.
d) for costs of the suit.
For Plaintiff : Mr.K.S.Saravanan
For Defendant : Mr.Madhan Babu for
Mr.Sathish Parasaran
C.S.No.423 of 2007
M/s.Hindustan Lever Limited.,
No.101, Santhome High Road,
(Entrance from South Canal Bank Road),
Chennai – 600 028. ...Plaintiff
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
Vs.
1.
Eureka Forbes Ltd.,
Anmol Palani, C & D-5, Level IV,
No.88, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
2.Swastik Agencies,
342, Nethaji Road,
Opp. Periyar Mandram,
Erode – 638 001. ...Defendants
Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule I of the Original Side Rules r/w.
Order VII Rule I of C.P.C., praying as follows:-
a) a perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants, their
directors, executives, distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents,
stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any
one claiming through or under them from in any manner referring to
plaintiff's 'Pureit' water purification system, either directly or indirectly, by
means of any allusion or insinuation in their Television Commercials,
Newspaper advertisement, Internet website publication, handouts,
brochures, user manual or any other promotional literature and / or publicity
materials by comparison of their 'Aquasure'water purifying system with the
plaintiff's 'Pureit' water purification system by making any direct or indirect
reference to the plaintiff's 'Pureit' Water Purifier, amounting to
disparagement or in any other manner whatsoever;
b) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
directors, executives, distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents,
stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any
one claiming through or under them from in any manner referring to
plaintiff's 'Pureit' Water Purifier either directly or indirectly, by means of any
allusion or insinuation in their Television Commercials, Newspaper
advertisement, Internet website publication, handouts, brochures, user
manual or any otther promotional literature and / or publicity materials, by
making comparison, importing direct or indirect reference to the plaintiff's
'Pureit' Water Purifier, thereby conveying a message to the public that the
plaintiff's 'Pureit' water purification system does not have the features,
advantages, efficiency of technology, purification process, direct contact,
long term consumption, killing microbes, warranty, product endorsement,
sales service network etc., or in any other manner whatsoever;
c) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their
directors, executives, distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents,
stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any
one claiming through or under them from in any manner referring to the
plaintiff either directly or indirectly, by means of any allusion of insinuation
in their Television commercials, Newspaper advertisement, Internet website
publication, handouts, brochures, user manual or any other promotional
literature and / or publicity materials or in any other manner whatsoever, so
as to defame the reputation of the plaintiff and / or its goods, or in any other
manner whatsoever;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
d) direction directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiff
for destruction all CD's, brochures, handouts, user manual, print materials,
pamphlets, screen prints, promotional literature / schemes in any media
advertisement, and other promotional literature and / or publicity materials
containing any direct or indirect reference to the plaintiff and / or its 'Pureit'
Water Purifier;
e) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff
directing the defendants to render and proper accounts of sales made by sale
of 'Aquasure' Water Purifier pursuant to the publication / circulation of the
impugned advertisement / comparison and a final decree be passed in favour
of the plaintiff for the amount of sales generated found to have been made
by the defendants after the latter have rendered accounts;
f) the defendants be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiff a
sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as damages for acts of disparagement committed by
the defendants;
g) for costs.
For Plaintiff : Mr.Madhan Babu for
Mr.Sathish Parasaran
For Defendants : Mr.K.S.Saravanan
COMMON JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
Heard Mr.K.S.Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff in C.S.No.156 of 2005 and for the defendants in C.S.No.423 of
2007 and Mr.Madhan Babu, learned counsel appearing for the defendant in
C.S.No.156 of 2005 and for the plaintiff in C.S.No.423 of 2007.
2.The parties have filed a memorandum of compromise. Both the
counsel would submit that the decree may be passed in terms of the
compromise.
3.Hence, both the suits are decreed in terms of compromise.
Consequently, connected applications are closed. No costs.
29.04.2021
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Non-Speaking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the plaintiff
in C.S.No.156 of 2005:
Nil
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendant
in C.S.No.156 of 2005:
Nil
List of witness marked on the side of the plaintiff
in C.S.No.423 of 2007:
P.W.1 – Srishti Dhir
List of documents marked on the side of the plaintiff
in C.S.No.423 of 2007:
S.No Exihibits. Documents marked
No
1 Ex.P1 The original letter of authorisation dated 16.08.2017.
2 Ex.P2 The Notarized copy of the Power of Attorney dated 26.06.2017
under which Ex.P1 has been issued.
3 Ex.P3 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 16.08.2004 issued by
National Institue for Cholera and Enteric Diseases.
4 Ex.P4 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 02.09.2004 issued by
S.R.Ranbaxy.
5 Ex.P5 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 06.09.2004 issued by
the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute.
6 Ex.P6 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 15.09.2004 issued by
Scottish Parasite Diagnostic Laboratory.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
S.No Exihibits. Documents marked
No
7 Ex.P7 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 30.09.2004 issued by
Apollo Hospitals, Chennai.
8 Ex.P8 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 30.11.2004 issued by
Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore.
9 Ex.P9 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 04.02.2005 issued by
King Institute of Preventive Medicine, Guindy.
10. Ex.P10 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 18.03.2005 issued by
Institute of Public Health Engineers, India.
11 Ex.P11 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 15.04.2005 issued by
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
12 Ex.P12 The Notarized copy of the certificate dated 17.04.2005 issued by
Indian Public Health Association.
13 Ex.P13 The Notarized copy of the certificate issued by Sundaram Medical
Foundation.
14 Ex.P14 The Notarized copy of the Hand out employed by the plaintiff
forming subject matter of C.S.No.156 of 2005.
15 Ex.P15 The Notarized copy of the Hand out employed by the plaintiff
forming subject matter of C.S.No.156 of 2005.
16 Ex.P16 The Notarized copy of the plaint in C.S.No.156 of 2005 filed by the
1st defendant.
17 Ex.P17 The Notarized copy of the plaint in C.S.No.370 of 2005 filed by the
1st defendant.
18 Ex.P18 The Notarized copy of the decreetal order dated 15.07.2005 passed
in C.S.No.370 of 2005.
19 Ex.P19 The Notarized copy of the plaint in C.S.No.1053 of 2005 filed by
the 1st defendant.
20 Ex.P20 The Notarized copy of the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff in
O.A.No.1125 of 2005 in C.S.No.1053 of 2005.
21 Ex.P21 The letter received by the plaintiff from G.Ranganatha Gopal.
22 Ex.P22 The letter received by the plaintiff from S.Selvi.
23 Ex.P23 The letter received by the plaintiff from M.Kaja Mohideen dated
05.03.2007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
S.No Exihibits. Documents marked
No
24 Ex.P24 The letter received by the plaintiff from Karthik dated 10.03.2007.
25 Ex.P25 The letter received by the plaintiff from S.Raja Sekaran dated
12.03.2007.
26 Ex.P26 The letter received by the plaintiff from Rafia dated 14.03.2007.
27 Ex.P27 The Disparaging advertisement materials and charts circulated by
the Defendants.
List of witness and documents filed on the side of the defendants
in C.S.No.423 of 2007:
Nil
29.04.2021
kkn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.Nos.156 of 2005 & 423 of 2007
and A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No. 191 of 2005
A.No.2377 of 2006 & O.A.No.191 of 2005
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
