Madras High Court
M/S.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha ... vs Dindigul Thalappalattu ... on 29 April, 2021
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
C.S.No.261 of 2018 (A)
M/s.Thalappakatti Naidu Anandha Vilas Biriyani Hotel,
represented by its partner, D.Nagasamy,
having its branch office at Flat No.B3,
New No.17, Old No.18A,
11th Street, Nandanam extension,
Chennai-600 035. .. Plaintiff
/versus/
Dindigul Thalappalattu Restautant
Represented by Nithyananthan,
Next to Hotel Akshaya
Chennai-Thirupathi bypass,
Narayanapuram Koot Road,
Thiruvallur-631 303. .. Defendant
This Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side
Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of CPC and Sections 134 and 135 of
the Trademarks Act, 1999, prayed for (a) Granting a permanent
injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, servants, agents or
anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing
the Plaintiff Trademark and Trading style “Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel”
by using the offending Trade Mark and Trading style “Thalapakattu” or
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
any other mark or marks which are similar or in any way deceptively
similar to or a colourable imitation of the Plaintiff's Trademark
“Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel”;
(b) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant,
their men, servants, agents or anyone claiming through or under them
from in any manner passing off the Plaintiff Trademark and Trading style
“Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel” by using the offending Trade Mark and
Trading style “Thalapakattu” or any other mark or marks which are
similar or in any way deceptively similar to or a colourable imitation of
the Plaintiff's Trademark “Thalappakatti Biriyani Hotel”;
(c ) Directing the defendant to render a true and faithful
account of the profits earned by them through the sale of food products
bearing the offending trade mark “Thalapakattu” and directing payment
of such profits to the Plaintiff by way of damages for infringement
committed by the Defendant;
(d) Directing the defendant to surrender to Plaintiff the entire
stock of unused offending goods with Trade Mark “Thalapakattu” with
name boards, labels, wrappers, boxes, covers, bags, packets, cartons,
bills, advertisements, materials, reports, envelops, brochures, printing
blocks, etc., bearing the offending Trademark for destruction;
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
(e) Directing to the defendant to pay the Plaintiff the costs of
the suit;
For plaintiff : Ms.S.Surya
for Mr.A.Jenasenan
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trademark.
2. This Court, on considering the prima facie material
available, granted interim injunction on 23.04.2018 and same was made
absolute on 28.06.2018, based on the affidavit of service filed by the
plaintiff/applicant in the interim injunction application. Thereafter, this
Court directed the plaintiff to take steps to serve summon on the
defendant. Since the suit summon was not served on several occasions,
this matter was posted before the Master for taking steps, but there was
no representation on behalf of the plaintiff. Hence, the matter was posted
before this Court on 11.09.2020. This Court adjourned the matter at the
request of the plaintiff's counsel to 12.10.2020. When the matter was
listed on 12.10.2020, this Court permitted the plaintiff to serve summons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
on the defendant through Court and also privately for the hearing date
04.12.2020. The plaintiff has not taken batta and the Registry has made a
note that the batta memo has not been filed. Hence, on 04.12.2020 this
Court again adjourned the matter to 18.01.2021.
3. When the matter was listed on 18.01.2021, the learned
counsel for the plaintiff sought further time to take steps. Hence time
granted till 19.02.2021 for issuance of fresh summons through Court and
privately to the defendant. Batta paid by the plaintiff for Court summons
returned unserved on 19.03.2021. The plaintiff has not taken private
notice and has not filed affidavit of service. Therefore, this Court again
ordered fresh summons through Court and privately to the defendant
returnable by 29.04.2021.
4. Today, when the matter is listed, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff submitted that further time may be granted to take batta since
there was some difficulties in reaching the Registry. However, when the
plaintiff was permitted to take private summons, he has not shown any
interest to take private summons which was permitted. This clearly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
shows that the plaintiff is not interested to serve a summon to the
defendants. Hence the suit is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.
29.04.2021
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
Index : yes/no
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
C.S.No.261 of 2018(A)
29.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
