Madras High Court
Aasife Biriyani Pvt Ltd vs Greens Lands Restaurant on 11 July, 2023
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.111 of 2023
and O.A.Nos.426 to 428 of 2023
and A.No.2623 of 2023
Aasife Biriyani Pvt Ltd,
Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.C.Y.Aasife,
Grls No. 325, D.No.11 / 3Q, Railway Station Road,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016.
Tamil Nadu, India. ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Greens Lands Restaurant,
Rep by its Partners,
Mr.Samzuddin and Mr. Mustafa Al Ameen,
No.218, Theni Main Road, PP Chavadi,
Kalavasal, Madurai - 625 016.
...Defendant
PRAYER: Plaint is filed under under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. read with
Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules, read with Sections 27, 29, 134 &
135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Sections 51, 55 & 62 of the
Copyright Act, 1957 praying for:-
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
i. Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, all his principal
officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business,
representatives and any other person from infringing the registered
trademark of the Plaintiff having Registration Number
3768877, or any other word/ words/ logo/ artistic work/ design/ device that
are identical or deceptively similar to the said registered Trademark of the
Plaintiff in Class 43.
ii. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, all his principal
officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business,
representative and any other person passing off his their services by using
the device mark of the Plaintiff or any other word/ words/
logo/ artistic work/ design/ device that are identical or deceptively similar to
the said mark of the Plaintiff in respect of providing food and drinks,
temporary accommodation.
iii. Permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, all his principal
officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business,
representatives and any other person from infringing the copyright of the
Plaintiff by using the artistic work in the registered trademark
or any other logo/ artistic work/ design/ device that are identical or
deceptively similar to the said copyright of the Plaintiff.
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
iv. A Preliminary Decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs directing
the Defendant to render a true and faithfully accounts of all profit made by
them, using the Plaintiffs Said Trademark and Copyright and a final decree
be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profit thus found to
have been made by the Defendant, together with interest, after the
Defendant has rendered accounts.
v. For the costs of the suit; and
vi. Pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in
the interest of justice and equality.
For Plaintiff : M/s.Hansika.N
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the matter has
been settled between the parties and she has also made an endorsement in
the plaint, seeking leave of this Court to withdraw the suit.
2. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff, leave is granted. The suit is dismissed as withdrawn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court of Judicature at Madras
vs. M.C.Subramaniam and others reported in (2021) 3 SCC 560 held that
in cases where the matter is settled out of court by private negotiation of
parties, the refund of court fee can be ordered. The relevant observation of
the Hon'ble Apex Court is as follows:-
“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 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, 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 settled their disputes without requiring
judicial intervention under Section 89 CPC are even more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
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 by the
parties.”
4. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
above said decision, the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of the Court fee
affixed by it in the plaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
5. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently,
Original Application Nos.426 to 428 of 2023 and Application No.2623 of
2023 are closed. No costs.
11.07.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
shr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.111 of 2023
P.T. ASHA, J,
shr
C.S.(Comm.Div).No.111 of 2023
and O.A.Nos.426 to 428 of 2023
and A.No.2623 of 2023
11.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
