M/S Mittal Electronics Vs Mr. Rohit Rana

This is a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant seeking a consent decree based on the terms of settlement as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the present application, which are reproduced as under:-

¶13

“3. That, thereafter, the Defendant approached the Plaintiff with the intention to amicably settle the matter and the Plaintiff agreed to the same. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has proposed the terms of settlement, which have been accepted by the Defendant and both parties have arrived at a consensus for amicable settlement of all pending disputes between them, on the terms and conditions as detailed below:

¶14

i. The Defendant hereby acknowledges that all rights, title, interest, and goodwill in the trademark SUJATA /

¶15

; including variants thereof, belong exclusively

¶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 07/05/2025 at 14:30:19

¶18

to the Plaintiff, and no other party has any right in the said trademarks. The Defendant acknowledges that the said trademark of the Plaintiff has become well-known trademark in India.

¶19

ii. The Defendant tenders an unconditional apology to the Plaintiff for violating the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff in its aforesaid trademarks, for infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and for passing off his own products as that of the Plaintiff, and for causing financial as well as reputational loss to the Plaintiff.

¶20

iii. The Defendant hereby unequivocally undertakes before this Hon’ble Court that henceforth, the Defendant, as well as any person acting for or on his behalf, shall not deal in or use in any manner whatsoever, or offer any services, or manufacture / sell any product

¶21

bearing mark SHREE SUJATA / SHREESUJATA / , or any mark visually, phonetically, or structurally identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademarks SUJATA /

¶22

iv. The Defendant undertakes that he shall not take any step to revive his trademark application bearing no. 6751424 filed by him for registration of the mark SHREESUJATA. The aforesaid trademark application has already been withdrawn by the Defendant by filing “Letter of Withdrawal” dated 08.04.2025 before the Trade Marks Registry. The Defendant further undertakes that he shall never file any application for registration of any mark visually, phonetically, or structurally identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s

¶23

trademarks SUJATA /

¶24

v. The Defendant declares that all listings of any products under

¶25

the mark SHREE SUJATA / SHREESUJATA / on any website or social media platform have been taken down / deleted by the Defendant. In case any such listing or mention of the said mark is found by the Plaintiff after the execution of this application, then the Defendant shall take immediate steps to get the same deleted and removed within 48 hours of being notified by the Plaintiff.

¶26

vi. The Defendant further declares that he has destroyed all labels, goods, stationery, hoardings, plates, signages and all other articles bearing the mark SHREE SUJATA / SHREESUJATA /

¶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 07/05/2025 at 14:30:19

¶29

, and he does not possess any such articles or goods with him anymore.

¶30

vii. The Defendant has undertaken to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as costs of the settlement. The Defendant has paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of demand draft and the copy of the same is attached herewith.

¶31

viii. The Defendant hereby undertakes to pay the Plaintiff an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) as liquidated damages, in case of any breach of the aforesaid undertakings given by the Defendant. In such an event, the Plaintiff shall also have the right to take appropriate legal action against the Defendant for further relief, in accordance with law.

¶32

ix. In consideration of the abovementioned undertakings by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has agreed to forego its claim for rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages, and costs as prayed under paragraphs 40 (iii), (iv), (v), and (vii) of the Plaint.

¶33

x. The parties hereby agree that all pending disputes between the parties in this regard stand settled. All the terms of the present settlement for amicable resolution of all pending disputes have been agreed voluntarily by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, without any coercion or undue influence.”

¶34

The present application is duly supported by affidavits of the authorized representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant.

¶35

Learned counsels of the parties confirm the terms of the settlement and identify the signatures of their respective clients and pray that the suit be decreed in the aforesaid terms as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the present application.

¶36

This Court has perused the terms of settlement as recorded inter-se the plaintiff and the defendant and finds them to be lawful.

¶37

In view thereof, the present application is allowed and disposed of.

¶38

CS(COMM) 135/2025

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, in view of the

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

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 07/05/2025 at 14:30:19

¶42

settlement entered inter se the plaintiff and the defendant, prays that since the dispute inter se them have been settled, he would not press for the other applications in view of paragraph 1 of the present order.

¶43

Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays that since the disputes between the parties have been settled amicably in terms of the Settlement Agreement hence the court fees paid by the plaintiff be refunded in terms of Section 16 of The Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶44

This Court is of the view that since the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and in view of the prayer made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, refund of 75% of the Court fees paid by the plaintiff is deemed justifiable.

¶45

Let a Certificate of refund of 75% of the Court fees paid by the plaintiff be prepared by the Registry and handed over to the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶46

Accordingly, the present suit is decreed in terms of the settlement as reproduced in paragraph 1 hereinabove.

¶47

The plaintiff and the defendant shall remain bound by the terms of settlement as reproduced in paragraph 1 hereinabove.

¶48

Registry is directed to draw up Decree sheet accordingly.

¶49

In view of the terms contained hereinabove, the Registrar of the Trade Marks is requested to assist the parties in furtherance of paragraph 3(iv) of I.A. 11168/2025, as reproduced paragraph 1 hereinabove, within a period of four weeks.

¶50

Needless to mention, the aforesaid terms reproduced in paragraph 1 hereinabove shall form a part of the decree sheet.

¶51

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 07/05/2025 at 14:30:19

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

Accordingly, in view of the above, the present suit stands disposed

¶54

of.

¶55

The date already fixed stands cancelled.

¶56

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶57

MAY 5, 2025/So

¶58

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 07/05/2025 at 14:30:19

¶59

This is a digitally signed order.

M/S Mittal Electronics v. Mr. Rohit Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mittal Electronics v. Mr. Rohit Rana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Sarin & Ors. Vs Directorate of Estates & Ors.

Future Bath Products Private Limited Vs Corza International & Ors.

Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Modern Foods Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Zee Media Corporation Limited Vs Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar Rout

Tbea Energy India Private Limited Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited & Anr.

Calvin Klein Trademark Trust Vs Mr. Gurvinder Singh & Ors.

Winzo Games Private Limited Vs Fabzen Technologies Private Limited & Ors.

Star India Private Limited & Anr. Vs Crichd Sc & Ors.

Future Bath Products Private Limited Vs Corza International & Ors.

M/S Corza International and Ors. Vs M/S Future Bath Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

M/S Kamdhenu Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Nirmal Seeds Private Limited Vs M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation

Doordarshan Directorate & Anr. Vs M/S Voice ,Vision

M/S Mittal Electronics through Its Partner Mr. Akhil Aggarwal Vs Mr. Satapara Vijaybhai Bhikhabhai @ Vijay Prajapati Trading as Shree Ganesh Industries