Allowed

Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Karan Narula and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2019CHSCD/888/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CIVIL: Chamber summons for leave to amend plaint to reflect registration of trademark 'theo' in classes 35 & 43. Court allowed amendment, finding no prejudice to defendants at pre-trial stage. Amended plaint to be served within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Leave to amend plaint to bring on record the development (registration of mark 'theo') was allowed; amended plaint to be served on defendants within two weeks.

Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Karan Narula… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

19.CHS888.19.doc

¶2

1 / 2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.888 OF 2019

¶5

IN

¶6

 COMMERCIAL I.P.SUIT NO.342 OF 2016

¶7

Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd.

¶8

)….Applicants/plaintiffs

¶9

 V/s.

¶10

Karan Narula and Ors.

¶11

)....Defendants

¶12

Ms.Preeti Shah a/w Mr.Manoj Menda for plaintiff/applicants.
Mr.Sharan Jagtiani a/w Mr.Vishal Narichania i/by Prakash Mahadik
for defendant nos.1 to 5.

¶13

CORAM :K.R.SHRIRAM,J
DATE : 13.8.2019

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

1.Ms.Shah for applicant/plaintiff states that there is a
Chamber summons no.888 of 2019 pending, which has to be heard
before the Notice of Motion is heard. The said Chamber summons is

¶16

not listed but by consent of the parties, is taken up for hearing.
Mr.Jagtiani for defendant nos.1 to 5 leaves it to the court.

¶17

2.As far as defendant no.6 is concerned, Ms.Shah relies upon
an affidavit of one Pradeep Swaminarayan affirmed on 7.8.2019 to
submit that the packet sent to defendant no.6 came back undelivered

19.CHS888.19.doc

2 / 2

with the endorsement “party shifted”.

¶22

3. I have seen the affidavit in support. The chamber

¶23

summons is for leave to amend the plaint to bring on record the
development post filing the suit. Plaintiffs’ applications for
registration of the mark “theo” in classes-35 & 43 were pending and
the same have now been registered. That is the only amendment. I
see no prejudice being caused to defendants if this amendment is
allowed. Moreover, suit is at pre trial stage. Therefore, Chamber
summons allowed in terms of prayer clause-(a) keeping open rights
and contentions of defendants. Amendment to be carried out and
amended plaint and amended Notice of Motion to be served on
defendants within two weeks from today. Further written
statement/additional reply to the Notice of Motion to be filed and
copy served within two weeks of receiving the amended plaint. Notice
of Motion be listed for hearing on 24.9.2019.

¶24

Chamber summons disposed accordingly.

¶25

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶26

Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Karan Narula and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Theobroma Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Karan Narula and Ors.

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

Dr. Swati Shashikant Joshi and Anr. Vs the Official Liquidator of Auram Machines (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Sangita Nitin Deolekar and Anr. Vs the Official Liquidator of Auram Machines (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Mahant Baba Mohandasji Chela of Baba Uttamdasji and Anr. Vs Shabbir S.Khan and Ors.

Dabur India Limited Vs Mandom Corporation and 2 Others

M/S Seaman Multi Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs M. v. Neel Kamal (Imo No. 8316558)

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Arulalan Acchan