Partly allowed

Pappu Farishta and Anr. v. Bajaj Electricals Limited

Bombay HC11 Apr 2023IA/392/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a commercial IP suit, the Court condoned a 23-day delay in filing the written statement by the defendants as sufficient cause was made out. Leave to combine passing-off and infringement causes of action was allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. An interim relief application regarding infringement and passing-off was listed for hearing.

What did the court decide?

IA No.392/2023 allowed; waste taken on record; Leave Petition L. No.7076/2020 allowed to combine passing-off and infringement; IA L. No.7074/2020 listed for further hearing on 21.06.2023.

Pappu Farishta and Anr. Vs Bajaj Electricals… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

28_IAL7074_20.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.7074 OF 2020

¶4

WITH LEAVE PETITION (L) NO.7076 OF 2020 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.285 OF 2022

¶5

Bajaj Electricals Limited … Applicant / Plaintiff Vs. Pappu Farishta and another … Respondents / Defendants

¶6

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.392 OF 2023

¶7

Mr. Melvyn Fernandes a/w. Ms. Anuya Pathare i/b. Vaish Associates for Plaintiff / Applicant in IAL/7074/2023 and for Respondent in IA/392/2023. Mr. Siddha Pamecha a/w. Ms. Mansi Patel, Mr. Jay Chheda i/b. Ms. Mansi Patel for Defendants and for Applicants in IA/392/2023.

¶8

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Digitally signed MINALSANDIP by MINALSANDIPPARABDate: PARAB 2023.04.1310:31:07 +0530

¶11

. By Interim Application No.392 of 2023, the defendants are seeking condonation of delay of 23 days in filing written statement. It is not disputed that the written statement is sought to be placed on record within the extended period of 120 days provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to Commercial Courts for filing written statement on behalf of the defendants.

¶12

Although the plaintiff has opposed the prayer made in the present application, this Court has considered the contents thereof. It is stated in paragraphs 3 to 8 as to the reasons why delay has occurred in filing the written statement, including a statement that the mother of defendant No.1 had fallen ill. This Court is convinced that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. Hence, Interim Application No.392 of 2023 is allowed and delay is condoned. The office is directed to take the written statement on record.

¶13

1/2

¶14

28_IAL7074_20.doc

¶15

LEAVE PETITION (L) NO.7076 OF 2020

¶16

This Court has perused the leave petition. The prayers made in the petition deserve to be granted in the interest of justice and particularly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Hence, the leave petition is allowed for combining the cause of action of passing-off with that of infringement.

¶17

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.7074 OF 2020

¶18

. Interim Application (L) No.7074 of 2020 for interim reliefs is pending hearing. It is made clear that at the stage of hearing of the application for interim reliefs, this Court will consider the question of grant or refusal of interim reliefs pertaining to infringement as well as passingoff.

¶19

List the application for hearing on 21.06.2023.

¶20

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶21

Minal Parab

¶22

2/2

Pappu Farishta and Anr. v. Bajaj Electricals Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Farishta and Anr. v. Bajaj Electricals Limited

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

Sitara Shipping Limited Vs Evershine Shipping and Logistics

Shubham Epc Private Limited Previously Known as Shubham Civil Projects Private Limited Vs Office of Development Commissioner (Msme) Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise and Anr.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Vs J. M. Laboratories and Anr.

Bharat Dinkarrai Adhiya Vs India Infoline Finance Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Methodical Mind Llc Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Ray Constructions Limited Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.