Prism Johnson Limited vs Joansan Bathware — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Prism Johnson Limited vs Joansan Bathware — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit disposed of in terms of the consent terms executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 & 2; Defendant Nos.3 to 5 deleted from the array of parties; Court Receiver's Report No.208 of 2025 disposed of; Receiver's costs, charges and expenses to be borne by the Applicant/Plaintiff within two weeks without passing of accounts; products seized by the Court Receiver to be destroyed as per the Consent Terms; interim application and leave petition disposed of as not surviving; refund of court fees as per rules.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Suit could be disposed of in terms of the mutual consent terms tendered by the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2. +1 more

Court's answer

The statement of Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that the suit is not being pressed against Defendant Nos.3 to 5 is accepted and Defendant Nos.3 to 5 are deleted from the array of parties.

Ratio / Principle

The consent terms executed by the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2, whose execution was duly verified by the Section Officer of the Court, are taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

Key takeaways

The Suit is disposed of in terms of the consent terms.ratio¶3
In view of the above order, the Court Receiver's Report No.208 of 2025 stands disposed of.ratio¶4
All necessary costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Court Receiver shall be borne by the Applicant/Plaintiff within two weeks without passing of accounts; the products seized by the Court Receiver shall be destroyed in the manner set out in the Consent Terms.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), Coram: Arif S. Doctor, J., by order dated 18 September 2025 in Interim Application No. 1085 of 2025 with Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 6739 of 2025 and Leave Petition (L) No. 6927 of 2025 — Prism Johnson Limited v. Joansan Bathware: On the Plaintiff's statement, the suit ceased to be pressed against Defendant Nos.3 to 5, who were deleted from the array of parties. Consent terms mutually executed by the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 & 2, whose execution was verified by the Section Officer of the Court (signatories admitting execution out of free will, without undue influence or coercion), were taken on record and marked “X” for identification, and the Suit was disposed of in terms of the consent terms. Consequently, Court Receiver's Report No.208 of 2025 stood disposed of; all costs, charges and expenses of the Receiver were directed to be borne by the Applicant/Plaintiff within two weeks without passing of accounts; and the products seized by the Court Receiver were to be destroyed in the manner set out in the Consent Terms. The interim application and the leave petition, having not survived the disposal of the Suit, stood disposed of, with liberty of refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. Consent-term disposal — no statutory provision or precedent engaged.

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2025.09.20 18:21:57 +0530

901-IA-1085-2025 (OS).doc

1 / 2

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

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1085 OF 2025

WITH

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 6739 OF 2025 WITH

LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 6927 OF 2025

Prism Johnson Limited ...Applicant/Plaintiff Versus Joansan Bathware ...Defendant

Mr. Shwetank Tripathi a/w Ms. Radhika Mehta i/b ANM Global for Applicant/Plaintiff.

Mr. Sanjeev Hariakar for Defendant Nos.1 & 2.

Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to Court Receiver, Present.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

DATE : 18th SEPTEMBER, 2025.

P.C:

At the outset, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the suit is not been pressed against the Defendant Nos.3 to 5. Statement is accepted. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 be deleted from the array of the parties.

Learned Counsel then submits that the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 & 2 have arrived at a mutual settlement of their disputes. He has tendered consent terms which are executed by the Plaintiff and

Meera Jadhav

901-IA-1085-2025 (OS).doc

2 / 2

Defendant Nos.1 and 2. The execution of the consent terms has been duly verified by the Section Officer of this Court. The report is annexed to the consent terms. Relevant portion of the report reads thus:

“The signatory has admitted the contents of the Consent Terms and are duly signed by the plaintiff and Defendants out of their free will without any undue influence and coercion. The consent terms are duly executed by plaintiff and Defendants.”

Having due regard to the aforesaid, the consent terms are taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Suit is disposed of in terms of the consent terms.

In view of the above order, the Court Receiver’s Report No.208 of 2025 stands disposed of. All the necessary costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Receiver shall be borne by the Applicant/Plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today without passing of accounts. The products sezied by the Court Receiver shall be destroyed in the manner set out in the Consent Terms.

In view of the disposal of the Suit, interim application as well as leave petition do not survive and accordingly stand disposed of.

Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

Meera Jadhav