Allowed

kaira district co-op bank and Anr. v. anmol ice cream and Anr.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2006APP/54/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the appellants' appeal to set aside a cost award of Rs.20,000/- imposed by the lower court. The court accepted the respondents' undertaking to stop using the disputed trademarks and get-ups, rendering further merits unnecessary and deeming the cost unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside the award of costs of Rs.20,000/- directed to be paid by the appellants and enforcing the respondents' undertaking.

kaira district co-op bank and Anr. Vs anmol ice cream… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.54 OF 2006 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3105 OF 2004 IN SUIT NO.2922 OF 2004

¶2

Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. and another .. Appeallnts v/s. Anmol Ice Cream and another .. Respondents

¶3

Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar with Mr.R.H.Gajaria i/by M/s.Gajaria & Co. for the appellants.

¶4

Mr.Dhiren Shah for the respondents.

¶5

CORAM : R.M. LODHA & ANOOP V.MOHTA, JJ.

¶6

DATED : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2006.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Admit.

¶10

Mr.Dhiren Shah, advocate waives service for the respondent.

¶11

By consent, the appeal is heard finally at this stage.

¶12

The advocate for the respondents handed in the statement on behalf

¶13

of the respondents (original defendants). The statement is marked “X” for identification purposes and it reads thus-

¶14

“1. The Defendants undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall not in any manner use the trademark, font, stylized writing and the labels with the layout, colour scheme and get-up depicted in Exhibits A, C,D and E to the plaint or any other trademark, font,

¶15

stylized writing, layout, colour scheme and get up deceptively similar to the same.

¶16

The Defendants further undertake to this Hon'ble Court that they shall not in any manner use the labels/cartons with the layout, colour scheme or getup in Exhibit G and I to the plaint or any other label with a layout, colour scheme or get-up deceptively similar to the same.”

¶17

The learned counsel for the appellants is satisfied with the statement of the respondents as set out above.

¶18

We are also satisfied that in view of the statement made by the respondents, the grievance sought to be raised by the appellants-original plaintiffs does not need to be gone into merits.

¶19

We find that the learned Motion Judge while disposing of the notice of motion has directed the appellants-original plaintiffs to pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- to the defendants. We find no justification in award of the said cost.

¶20

We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal by the following order:-

¶21

(i) The respondents are directed to abide by the statement made before us as set out above.

¶22

(ii)The award of cost of Rs.20,000/- by the learned Motion

¶23

Judge is set aside.

¶24

(R.M.LODHA, J.)

¶25

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

kaira district co-op bank and Anr. v. anmol ice cream and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

kaira district co-op bank and Anr. v. anmol ice cream and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Saied Unnisa Begum and Ors. Vs Jameel Ahmed Hussain and Ors.

Mrs. Said Unnisa Begum and Ors. Vs Jameel Ahmed Hussain and Ors.

M/S Aquarius Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Amit Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.

The Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs Chandrakant Baburao Holamb and Ors.

Ravinderpal Singh Bains Vs Kareena Sana Combine and 2 Ors.

Parvez M. Yusuf Vs State of Maharashtr and Anr.