The High Court of Bombay disposed of Suit No. 416 of 2014 and Notice of Motion No. 651 of 2014 based on signed Consent Terms between the parties regarding dispute resolution and mark transfer.
The suit and notice of motion were disposed of according to consent terms; no drawn-up decree is immediately necessary.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
905-S416-14+.DOC
SHEPHALI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
SUIT NO. 416 OF 2014 WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 651 OF 2014
…Plaintiff
MW Eat Limited…Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Corum Hospitality & Others…Defendants
Ms. Roshani Naik, i/b Khare Legal Chambers, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Alankar Kirpekar, with Mr. Muralidhar Khadilkar, Ms. Jaya
Manghwani, Mr. Shekhar Bhagat & Mr. Aakash Joshi, i/b MAG
Legal, for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 2nd December 2016
PC:-
1.The Suit and the Notice of Motion are settled. Consent
Terms have been drawn. These are signed by a representative of the
Plaintiff in England; on behalf of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2; and by
the parties’ respective Advocates. The Consent Terms are taken on
record and marked “X” for identification. For clarity, it is noted that
the original Consent Terms are those on white paper and that the
ledger paper (engrossment) version is a copy. This is because it was
the white copy that was couriered from London.
2.I am satisfied that the Consent Terms are in order, that they
are not contrary to law, and that they have been drawn by the parties
of their own volition in reflection of their true intentions. The
Page 1 of 2
2nd December 2016
905-S416-14+.DOC
Consent Terms provide specifically for the transfer of the disputed
mark/logo by the Defendants to the Plaintiff and for the cessation of
the use of that mar by the Defendants. Provisions are also made in
clause 11 for a monetary consideration to be paid by the Plaintiff to
the Defendants. The undertakings in the Consent Terms are
accepted as undertakings to the Court.
3.The Suit is disposed of in accordance with the Consent
Terms. There will be no order as to costs.
4.Drawn up decree is dispensed with. However, if for the
purpose of implementation of these Consent Terms, should the
parties require a drawn up decree, they will be entitled to apply to
the Department for one without having to make a separate
application in that behalf and on production of an authenticated
copy of this order. Drawn up decree is to be strictly in accordance
with these Consent Terms.
5. Refund of court fee, if any, in accordance with the Rules.
6.In view of this, the Notice of Motion itself is also disposed of
in accordance with the consent Terms. There will be no order as to
costs.
7. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
Page 2 of 2
2nd December 2016
G.S. Patel
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court