Partly allowed

Karan Healthcare Private Limited v. M S Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC18 Sept 2025CS(COMM)/504/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trademark infringement suit over the mark BRALGET/BRALGETIN settled through mediation. The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, relying on Afcons Infrastructure, granted partial relief per prayer clauses (i)-(iii), dismissed remaining prayers as withdrawn, and ordered 100% court-fee refund.

What the court decided

AI extract

Karan Healthcare Private Limited Vs M S Agron Remedies… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~18

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 504/2022

¶4

KARAN HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Amit Jain, Mr. Abhishek, Mr. Sambhav Rana, Mr. Anvesh Soni, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

M S AGRON REMEDIES PVT LTD .....Defendant

¶8

Through: Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia, Adv

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R % 18.09.2025

¶10

The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off of trademarks, infringement of copyrights, damages, delivery up, etc of the mark of Plaintiffs i.e., "BRALGET/BRALGETIN", by the Defendant.

¶11

The Joint Registrar (J) vide order dated 03.03.2025 referred the parties to mediation for a formal settlement. The mediation has resulted in successful settlement of disputes.

¶12

Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 executed between the parties has been received from the Registry.

¶13

Learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant state that the suit may be disposed of in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025.

¶14

CS(COMM) 504/2022 Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 24/09/2025 at 12:50:56

¶17

The terms of the settlement are mentioned in detail at paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 filed along with the Plaint.

¶18

It is stated that there are no executory obligations under the agreement and all obligations already stand performed by both the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant state that they shall be bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the Defendant and perused the Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025. 9. The Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd.¹ , while dealing with the Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has observed that a settlement agreement executed between the parties should be placed before the Court for recording it and disposing of the suit in its terms. And, while dealing with the settlement the Court should apply the Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC and make a decree in terms of the settlement in regard to the subject matter of the suit, to make such settlement effective.

¶19

The Court is satisfied that the compromise between the parties as contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 satisfies the requirements of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC. 11. The compromise contained in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 is lawful and therefore, this Court does not find any impediment in decreeing the captioned suit in terms of the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025.

¶20

The statements and undertaking given by the parties are accepted by this Court and the parties are held bound by the same.

¶21

CS(COMM) 504/2022 Page 2 of 3

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 24/09/2025 at 12:50:56

¶24

Consequently, the captioned Suit be decreed in terms of Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 and the prayer clause paragraph at 71 '(i)’ to ‘(iii)’ of the plaint. The remaining prayers are not pressed and accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

The Registry of this Court is directed to prepare a decree in terms of this order and it is directed that the Settlement Agreement dated 22.08.2025 shall form part of the said decree.

¶26

Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶27

Refund of Court fee

¶28

Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs prays that court fee may be refunded.

¶29

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the registry is directed to refund 100% Court Fee in favour of Plaintiff within four (4) weeks, in accordance with law. The said direction has been passed having regard to Section 16 and 16A of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶30

Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.

¶31

Future dates, if any, stands cancelled.

¶32

The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

¶33

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

¶34

SEPTEMBER 18, 2025/ mt/IB

¶35

1 (2010) 8 SCC 24.

¶36

CS(COMM) 504/2022 Page 3 of 3

¶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 24/09/2025 at 12:50:56

Karan Healthcare Private Limited v. M S Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Karan Healthcare Private Limited v. M S Agron Remedies Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bayer Healthcare Llc Vs Msn Laboratories Private Limited

New Balance Athletic,Inc. Vs Divit Anand and Ors.

Neoteric Research Services LLP & Anr. Vs Neotric Insights & Anr.

Friends Color Images Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canon India Pvt. Ltd.

Netmeds Healthcare Limited & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.

M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs Abdus Salam Khan

Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A & Anr. Vs M/S Shree Shankeshwar Utensils & Appliances Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. Vs Om Prakash Gupta

Principal Commissioner of Customs Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House a Nd Anr. Vs M/S Crocs Inc. Usa

New Balance Athletic,Inc. Vs Divit Anand and Ors.

Novartis Ag Vs Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Footprints Childcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bks Educational Trust & Ors.

Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Netmeds Healthcare Limited & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar & Ors.