Allowed

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Crown Industries

Bombay HC25 Oct 2016LPETN/296/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accepted an unconditional apology and undertakings from the defendant's partner regarding his threatening and illegal conduct towards a Court Receiver, accepting the withdrawal of the resulting police complaint. The suit was decreed based on consent, with specific directions for the disposal of sealed goods, discharge of the Court Receiver, and disposal of ancillary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed by consent; apology and undertaking to withdraw police complaint accepted; directions for destruction or re-fusing of sealed goods at defendant's cost; Court Receiver discharged.

Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Crown Industries — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

917-SL946-16.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT (L) NO. 946 OF 2016

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2873 OF 2016 AND

¶6

LEAVE PETITION NO. 296 OF 2016

¶7

Hindustan Unilever Limited
Versus
Crown Industries

¶8

…Plaintiffs

¶9

…Defendants

¶10

Mr. Himanshu Kane, with Mr. Ashutosh Kane & Ms. Anusha
Ramnathan, i/b W.S. Kane & Co., for the Plaintiffs.

¶11

Mr. Rohan Kadam, with Mr. Sanjay Kadam, Mr. Sanjil Kadam, Mr.
Deepak Enakphale & Ms. Sayalee Rajpurkar, i/b Kadam & Co.,
for the Defendants.

¶12

Mr. Mohan Rajpal Jain, Partner of the Defendant, is present.
Mr. M.S. Deshpande, Court Receiver, is present.

¶13

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 25th October 2016

¶14

PC:-

¶15

1.The Court Receiver was appointed under an ad-interim order
dated 5th October 2016. He proceeded to execute that order and
there is a site report dated 25th October 2016. Below this is a Note
placed by Mr. K.K. Hebale. It makes for the most unfortunate

¶16

Page 1 of 4
25th October 2016

¶17

917-SL946-16.DOC

¶18

reading. It notes the conduct of the Defendants’ partner, Mr.
Mohan Rajpal Jain, present in Court today. Mr. Jain threatened Mr.
Hebale. He refused to sign the site report. He attempted to inspect
Mr. Hebale’s camera. He threatened to file an FIR and it seems he
did so. He also kept Mr. Hebale confined to a police station at Sanay
Nagar, Sangli from 4.45 p.m. till 8:30 pm, a wholly illegal and
thoroughly criminal act.

¶19

2.As far as I am concerned, Mr. Jain is in contempt of Court.
Indeed, his conduct amounts to criminal contempt. Although the
parties were willing to settle the matter, I am not willing to let it go
at this. I will not tolerate any party assaulting one of our officers like
this, and I will take action.

¶20

3.At Mr. Kadam’s request at this stage on behalf of the
Defendants, the matter is kept back to 3:00 pm.

¶21

At 3.00 p.m.

¶22

4.Mr. Kadam on behalf of the Defendants tenders an Affidavit
of Mr. Jain. This contains an unconditional apology to the Court, as
also to Mr. Hebale. Mr. Jain is in the witness box. He is a senior
citizen. He admits he was wrong. He apologizes and seeks that his
apology be accepted. I have made it clear to him that should I find
him crossing this line again, I will have absolutely no regard for his
position, age or health and he will then face the full wrath of the law,
without delay and without mercy. Mr. Jain says he has understood
my meaning. Mr. Hebale himself is not present in Court now being

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

25th October 2016

¶25

917-SL946-16.DOC

¶26

otherwise engaged, though he was here in the morning session. On
his behalf, the Court Receiver, Mr. Deshpande submits that the
apology may be accepted.

¶27

5.At Mr. Kadam’s request, I will accept this Affidavit and its
undertakings as also the apologies contained in it. The undertakings
in the Affidavit are accepted as undertakings to the Court. In this
Affidavit, Mr. Jain specifically agrees and undertakes to withdraw
the criminal complaint filed with the Sanay Nagar, Sangli Police
Station. That undertaking is also accepted. Mr. Jain will make the
necessary withdrawal within 48 hours of this order being uploaded.
An authenticated copy of this order is to be sent by the Court
Receiver to the authorities at the Sanay Nagar police station,
despatch to be effected before 27th October 2016. Those police
authorities will act on an authenticated copy of this order and treat
Mr. Jain’s complaint against Mr. Hebale as withdrawn.

¶28

6. I will now take up the matter.

¶29

7. By consent, the Leave Petition is made absolute.

¶30

8.Mr. Kadam, on instructions from Mr. Jain, submits to a
decree in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (e) and (f) of the Suit. Mr.
Kane, therefore, does not press the prayer for damages.

¶31

9.The Suit is decreed in these terms with no order as to costs.
Drawn up decree is dispensed with. Refund of Court Fees, if any, in
accordance with the Rules.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

25th October 2016

¶34

917-SL946-16.DOC

¶35

10.The Court Receiver had sealed certain goods. These are to be
destroyed after removing the goods from the impugned packaging by
the Defendants at their cost within a period of 12 weeks. The
Defendant will file an Affidavit of compliance within a period of
sixteen weeks from today. It is clarified that the Defendants will be
entitled to melt down the soap and the soap bars and to re-use them
or re-fashion them in a non-infringing manner.

¶36

11.The Court Receiver stands discharged without passing
accounts but on payment of his costs, charges and expenses within
four weeks from today by the Plaintiffs.

¶37

12.Notice of Motion (L) No. 2873 of 2016 does not survive and
is disposed accordingly.

¶38

13.All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.

¶39

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶40

Page 4 of 4
25th October 2016

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Crown Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Crown Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamleshkumari Ramprakash Bindra and 4 Ors. Vs Ramprakash Laxmandas Bindra (Deceased)

Vasanti C. Dadhich and Anr. Vs Bhagvatidevi K. Dadhich and 3 Ors.

M/S. Blossum Estates Vs Deven Ramjibhai Raghani and 19 Ors.

Veena Vijaykumar Oza Vs M/S.Sharan Shelters Pvt.Ltd and 11 Ors..

Anis Abbas Rokadia and 2 Ors. Vs Shabana Wd/O. Aziz Rokadia and 3 Ors.

Geeta Mohan Narayan Vs Uma Narayan and State of Maharashtra (Applicant)