Allowed

Grindwell Norton Limited v. Preetham Reddy

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026COMIP/233/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Grindwell Norton Limited v. Preetham Reddy, COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 233 OF 2025, Bombay High Court Commercial Division (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.), decided 8 April 2026. Suit resolved by settlement: Consent Terms marked Exhibit X; Defendants submitted to decree of admission in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (e); statements accepted as undertakings; suit decreed with refund of court fees. Court Rece

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the plaint; statements in the Consent Terms accepted as undertakings to the Court; refund of Court fees as per rules; Court Receiver di

Grindwell Norton Limited vs Preetham Reddy — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.04.10 18:32:42 +0530

¶2

69.COMIP233.2025.doc

¶3

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

¶4

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 233 OF 2025 WITH

¶5

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 11706 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2007 OF 2025 WITH LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 34392 OF 2023 WITH COURT RECEIVER REPORT NO. 50 OF 2024

¶6

Grindwell Norton Limited.

...Plaintiff

Versus

Preetham Reddy.

...Defendant

Mr. Rohan Lopes a/w. Mr. Karan Khiani i/b. Rashmi Singh, Advocate for the Plaintiff.

¶12

Mr. Saurabh Tyagi, Advocate for Defendant(through V.C.) Mr. Satish P. More, A.S.O, Court Receiver.

¶13

——————

¶14

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

¶15

DATE : APRIL 08, 2026

¶16

P. C. :

¶17

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

¶18

the parties. The Consent Terms are tendered which are taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

¶19

1 of 2

¶20

Talwalkar

¶21

69.COMIP233.2025.doc

¶22

2. The Consent Terms are signed by the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff and by the Defendant No. 1 for himself and on behalf of Defendant No. 3 and by Defendant No. 2 for herself and on behalf of Defendant No. 4.

¶23

3. Defendants are represented by their Advocate who is present virtually. The Advocate for the Defendants, on instructions, reiterates that the Defendants submit to the decree of admission in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the plaint. The statement made in the Consent Terms is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court. The Suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e) of the plaint. Refund of Court fees as per rules.

¶24

4. Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of. Court Receiver is discharged without passing of accounts. All costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be paid by the Plaintiff within a period of 8 days of demand being raised by the Court Receiver.

¶25

5. Interim Applications do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶26

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶27

2 of 2

¶28

Talwalkar

Grindwell Norton Limited v. Preetham Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Grindwell Norton Limited v. Preetham Reddy

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Virendra Vasant Kanekar vs Rukmini Mahadev Wake

Money Magnum Nest Private Limited vs the Assistant Assessor and Collector and Taxes E Ward

Bholenath Medical Stores vs Attaullah Having Its Proprietorship Concern as Adarsh Perfumery Udyog

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Dinesh Kumar Jhanwar trading as Sangam Beverages and Water Supply

Ushadevi Karansingh Tak and Ors. vs Santosh Rajaram Sharma and Anr.

Vinaykumar Digambar Patkar vs Anil Ganesh Bhagat and Ors.