Dismissed

Dart Industries Inc. and Anr. v. Dilip B Shah and 2 Others

Bombay HC26 Oct 2016NMS/2837/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit regarding registered designs for plastic bottles, the defendants undertook not to manufacture, sell, or deal in the products. Consequently, the plaintiffs did not press for damages. The court disposed of the suit and the Notice of Motion as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Refund of court fees if any; suit disposed of; Notice of Motion disposed of as infructuous.

Dart Industries Inc. and Anr. Vs Dilip B Shah and 2… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

948-NMSL-2384-2016.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 2384 OF 2016

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT (L) NO. 828 OF 2016

¶6

Dart Industries Inc. and Another… Plaintiffs
Versus

¶7

Dilip Shah and others

¶8

… Defendants

¶9

Mr. Hemant Singh, with Ms. Mamta Jha i/b Mr. Rishi Mody for the Plaintiffs.

¶10

Mr. Akshay Patil, with Ms. Pranali Adangale, i/b M/s. K. Ashar and
Company for the Defendants Nos.1 and 3.

¶11

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 26th October 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.Mr. Patil makes a statement on the instructions that the
products in question covered by prayer (a) of the Plaint are not being
manufactured, sold or dealt with by the Defendants. The statement
is accepted as an undertaking to the Court and will be enforced as
such.

¶14

2.He also makes a statement that the image and description on
the IndiaMart website were on account of an error by IndiaMart and
this was acknowledged and confirmed in the annexure at page 142 of

¶15

Page 1 of 2
26th October 2016

¶16

948-NMSL-2384-2016.DOC

¶17

the Notice of Motion paper book Exhibit “F” to the Affidavit in
Reply. Mr. Patil has instructions to assure Court on behalf of the
Defendants that the Defendants are not now dealing and have not at
any time dealt in any plastic bottles of the kind described in prayer
(a) or in the Plaintiffs’ registered design Nos. 221424 and 221425.

¶18

3.In view thereof, Mr. Singh does not press his prayer for
damages. The Suit is disposed of in these terms. Drawn up decree /
order is dispensed with.

¶19

4. Refund of Court Fees, if any, in accordance with the Rules.

¶20

5. In view of the above, the Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous.

¶21

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

¶22

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

26th October 2016

Dart Industries Inc. and Anr. v. Dilip B Shah and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dart Industries Inc. and Anr. v. Dilip B Shah and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Narendrabhai Dave Vs Suresh Harilal Dave and 5 Ors.

Vidula Rajesh Musale Vs Rajesh Sadashiv Musale (Deceased)

Saurabh Subhash Pawse Vs Nikhil Subhash Pawse and Pratima Nikhil Pawse

Niki Arvind Parekh and Durva Niki Parekh Vs -

Vipul Bharat Thakkar, American and Meenu v.Thakkar Vs Vijay Kamlesh Nichaney and Anr. and Tiyasha Vipul Thakkar (Minor)

Shree Manav Seva Sangh Vs Mr Stein Arthur Ramstad and Anr. (Prop Adopters)