Disposed

Pfizer Products, Inc. v. Paval Garg & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Feb 2024CS(COMM)/170/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commercial suit settled between the parties. The court permitted recording of a defendant's changed name, deleted a ceased proprietorship defendant, and decreed the suit in terms of the settlement under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, directing filing of vakalatnama within one week.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of settlement; Defendant No. 2's name change taken on record and Defendant No. 3 deleted.

Pfizer Products, Inc. Vs Paval Garg & Ors. — Delhi HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~50

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 170/2018

¶4

VIATRIS SPECIALTY LLC ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sidhu and Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

PAVAL GARG & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Mohan Vidhani and Ms. Elisha Sinha, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 09.02.2024

¶12

I.A. 3273/2024 (under Order I Rule 10 of CPC on behalf of Plaintiff)

¶13

Counsel for Plaintiff states that during the pendency of the suit, the name of Defendant No. 2 has changed from ‘M/s Unisule Pvt. Ltd.’ to ‘M/s Combitic Global Caplet Pvt. Ltd.’ Certificate of change of name has been annexed as ‘Document No. 2’ to the instant application.

¶14

He further states that Defendant No. 3, which was a sole proprietorship of Defendant No. 1, has ceased its operations and therefore ceased to exist during the pendency of the suit. Thus, Defendant No. 3 is no longer a proper or necessary party and should be deleted from array of parties. In this regard, reliance is placed on ‘Document No. 1’ annexed with the instant application.

¶15

In light of the above, the application is allowed with the following

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 15:47:23

¶18

directions:

¶19

3.1. Change of name of Defendant No. 2 is permitted to be taken on record.

¶20

3.2. Defendant No. 3 stands deleted from the array of parties.

¶21

3.3. Amended memo of parties, which is annexed with the instant application, is taken on record.

¶22

Disposed of.

¶23

I.A. 3220/2024 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC on behalf of Plaintiff and Defendants)

¶24

This is a joint application on behalf of the parties under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 whereby the Plaintiff and Defendants No. 1 and 2 (as per amended memo of parties dated 05^th February, 2024) jointly pray for a decree in terms of the settlement delineated in Paragraph No. 5 of the application.

¶25

The above-captioned application is duly supported by affidavits of the Authorized Representative of the Plaintiff as well as of affidavits of Defendant No. 1 and Manager of Defendant No. 2. Counsel for the parties have identified their signatures and confirm the settlement between the parties.

¶26

The Court has perused the terms of the settlement and finds the same to be lawful. Accordingly, the present suit is decreed as per the terms of settlement recorded in Paragraph No. 5 of the instant application, which shall form part of the decree. Parties shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the settlement.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 15:47:23

¶29

However, at this juncture, Ms. Elisha Sinha, Advocate, informs the Court that vakalatnama on behalf of Defendants No. 1 and 2 is not on record. Nonetheless, she confirms the settlement arrived at and undertakes to file vakalatnama on behalf of the said Defendants, which authorises them to sign the application. Nonetheless, since affidavits of the respective authorized signatories of the said Defendants accompany the instant application, the Court has proceeded to decree the suit on the basis thereof, with the direction that vakalatnama on behalf of Defendants No. 1 and 2 be filed within a period of one week from today.

¶30

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶31

Disposed of.

¶32

CS(COMM) 170/2018 & I.A. 19737/2023

¶33

In light of the order passed in I.A. 3220/2024, the present suit has been decreed in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties.

¶34

Accordingly, the suit is disposed of, along with pending application.

¶35

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶36

FEBRUARY 9, 2024 d.negi

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/12/2024 at 15:47:23

Pfizer Products, Inc. v. Paval Garg & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pfizer Products, Inc. v. Paval Garg & Ors.

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

Ajay Kapoor Vs Dsv Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S United Sales Corporation Vs Bgm Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Geneva Laboratories Limited & Anr. Vs Mr. Jay Khodiyar & Ors.

M/S Valecha Engineering Ltd. Vs the Govt of Nctd & Ors.

Smt Kanwal Jeet Kaur Bawa Vs Punjab and Sind Bank

Securitas Ab Vs C. Visvalingam and Anr.

Rica S.P.A Vs M/S. Skin Safe Industries through Its Sole Proprietor & Ors.

Jockey International Inc. Vs M/S Femi & Ors.

Discovery Holdings Limited Vs Controller of Patents and Designs

Mitsui Chemicals Agro Inc. Vs Controller of Patents

Geneva Laboratories Limited & Anr. Vs Mr. Jay Khodiyar & Ors.

Maharashi Patanjali Vidya Mandir Samiti Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Maharashi Patanjali Vidya Mandir Samiti Vs Registrar Trade Marks

Aditya Infotech Limited Vs Dipankar Mandal