Saint-Gobain India Private Limited vs Hitesh O. Baheti — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Saint-Gobain India Private Limited vs Hitesh O. Baheti — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Suit decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the Plaint pursuant to consent terms; statements in the consent terms accepted as undertakings to the Court; decree to be drawn up accordingly; refund of Court fees as per rules; Court Receiver discharged without passing of accounts, with the Receiver's costs, charges and expenses payable within eight days on demand; pending applications, if any, disposed of; Leave Petition (L) No. 25492 of 2023 allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon settlement and in view of the consent terms, the suit should be decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the Plaint. +2 more

Court's answer

On the basis of the consent terms executed by the authorized signatory of the Plaintiff and by Defendant No. 1 (proprietor of Defendant No. 2), who was present virtually, reiterated the terms and submitted to a decree on admission, and whose identity was verified from his Aadhar Card and by his counsel, the Suit is decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the Plaint.

Ratio / Principle

The statements made in the consent terms are accepted as undertaking given to the Court.

Key takeaways

Decree to be drawn up accordingly.ratio¶24
Refund of Court fees as per rules.ratio¶25
The Court Receiver's report stands disposed of and the Court Receiver is discharged without passing of accounts; all costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver are to be paid within a period of eight days on demand being raised by the Court Receiver.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Consent decree — Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., February 18, 2026): Commercial IP Suit No. 134 of 2025 having been settled, consent terms executed by the authorized signatory of Plaintiff Saint-Gobain India Private Limited and by Defendant No. 1, Hitesh O. Bahetti (proprietor of Defendant No. 2), were taken on record and marked 'X'. Defendant No. 1, present virtually, reiterated the terms and submitted to a decree on admission; his identity was verified from his Aadhar Card and by his counsel. The suit was decreed on admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the Plaint; the statements in the consent terms were accepted as undertakings to the Court; refund of court fees was directed as per rules. The Court Receiver was discharged without passing of accounts, his costs, charges and expenses to be paid within eight days on demand. Pending applications stood disposed of as nothing survived, and Leave Petition (L) No. 25492 of 2023 was allowed as the dispute stood settled. Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-OS:4592.

2026:BHC-OS:4592

3 COMIP-134-2025.doc

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

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 134 OF 2025

Saint-Gobain India Private Limited ...Plaintiff Versus

Hitesh O. Bahetti and Another ...Defendants

WITH

LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 25492 OF 2023

Mr. Rohan Lopes, Mr. Karan Khiani i/b Ms. Rashmi Singh for Plaintiffs. Ms. Aruna J. Khare, representative of Court Receiver. Mr. Shrikant Rathi, Mr. Hitesh Baheti (Defendant No. 1) present through VC for Respondents.

——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : FEBRUARY 18, 2026

P. C. :

Commercial IP Suit No. 134 of 2025 :

1. This Court is informed that the suit has been settled between the parties.

2. The Consent terms are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

3. The Consent terms are executed by the authorized signatory of the Plaintiff and by Defendant No. 1 who is proprietor of Defendant No. 2. The Defendant No. 1 is present virtually and reiterates the terms

1 of 2

Sairaj

3 COMIP-134-2025.doc

of the Consent Terms. He submits to a decree on admission in terms of

prayer clauses (a), (b) and (d) of the Plaint. His identity is verified from his Aadhar Card and by his counsel. The Suit is decreed on admission in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (d) of the Plaint.

4. The statements made in the consent terms are accepted as undertaking given to this Court.

5. Decree to be drawn up accordingly.

6. Refund of Court fees as per rules.

7. Court Receivers Report is disposed of. Court Receiver is discharged without passing of accounts. All costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid within a period of eight days on demand being raised by Court Receiver.

8. In view of above, nothing survives for consideration in pending Applications, if any, and the same stand disposed of.

Leave Petition (L) No. 25492 of 2023 :

9. As the dispute has been settled between the parties, Leave Petition is allowed.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

2 of 2

Sairaj