Disposed¶26

Good Brands for a Healthy Life Private Limited v. Krbl Limited

Delhi HC9 May 2025CS(COMM)/549/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Consent decree Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC; Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025; Good Brands For A Healthy Life Private Limited v. KRBL Limited; CS(COMM) 549/2023; refund of court fees Section 16 Court Fees Act 1870; 50% court fee refund on amicable settlement after long pendency; disposal of stay application I.A. 15051/2023 and Order 39 Rule 2A application I.A. 16365/2023; Decree Sheet; Delhi High Court; Justice Saurabh Banerjee; decided 09.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 (consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC); certificate for refund of 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff to be prepared by the Registry; Decree Sheet to be drawn up with the Settlement Agreement forming part of it. ¶26

Good Brands for a Healthy Life Private Limited Vs Krbl Limited — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should pass a Consent Decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

Having perused the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 and found its terms lawful, the Court decreed the present suit in terms of the settlement recorded therein, and both the plaintiff and the defendant shall remain bound by the terms of that settlement.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Since the disputes were amicably settled but the suit had remained pending for a considerably long period, refund of 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff is justifiable, and the Registry is directed to prepare a certificate of such refund.

¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Justice Saurabh Banerjee), order dated 09.05.2025: Commercial suit CS(COMM) 549/2023 (Good Brands For A Healthy Life Private Limited v. KRBL Limited) was decreed as a consent decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC in terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 between the parties, whose terms the Court found lawful and whose execution counsel confirmed. Both parties were held bound by the settlement. On the strength of Section 16, Court Fees Act, 1870, the Court held refund of 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff justifiable because the disputes were amicably settled only after long pendency, and directed the Registry to issue a refund certificate and draw up the Decree Sheet incorporating the Settlement Agreement. The suit, along with the pending applications (I.A. 15051/2023-Stay and I.A. 16365/2023-O 39 R 2A), stood disposed of.

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 549/2023, I.A. 15051/2023-Stay, I.A. 16365/2023-O 39 R 2A

¶4

GOOD BRANDS FOR A HEALTHY LIFE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Kripa Pandit, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

KRBL LIMITED .....Defendant Through: Mr. Shravan Bansal and Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

¶9

O R D E R % 09.05.2025

¶10

At the outset, learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant submit that the disputes inter se them in the present lis have been settled, and the terms thereof have been reduced to writing in the form of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025, which is forming a part of record. As such, the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant pray that a Consent Decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( CPC ) may be passed in terms thereof.

¶11

Learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that, in view of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 inter se the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff does not wish to press for any other relief qua the defendant.

¶12

Learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant confirm the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 14/05/2025 at 11:34:30

¶15

terms of the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 and identify the signatures of their respective clients.

¶16

This Court has perused the terms of Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025 as recorded inter se the plaintiff and the defendant and finds them to be lawful.

¶17

In light of the above, the present suit is decreed in terms of the settlement between the plaintiff and the defendant as recorded in the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025. 6. Needless to mention, the plaintiff and the defendant shall remain bound by the terms of the settlement as recorded in the aforesaid Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for the plaintiff also prays that since the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant have been settled amicably, the court fees paid by the plaintiff be refunded in terms of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870.

¶19

This Court is of the view that since the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant have been amicably settled but the same remained pending for a considerable long period, refund of 50% of the Court fees paid by the plaintiff is justifiable.

¶20

Let a Certificate of refund of 50% of the Court fees paid by the plaintiff be prepared by the Registry and handed over to the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

¶21

Registry is directed to draw up the Decree Sheet.

¶22

Needless to mention, the Settlement Agreement dated 08.04.2025, shall form a part of the Decree Sheet.

¶23

Accordingly, in view of the above, the present suit, alongwith the

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 14/05/2025 at 11:34:30

¶26

pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶27

SAURABH BANERJEE, J

¶28

MAY 9, 2025 NA

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 14/05/2025 at 11:34:30

Good Brands for a Healthy Life Private Limited v. Krbl Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Good Brands for a Healthy Life Private Limited v. Krbl Limited

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

Eureka Forbes Limited (Formerly Forbes Enviro Solutions Limited) Vs Nandan Sales and Ors.

Laborate Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs Mmc Healthcare Limited

Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Cafe Social through Its Proprietor

Sun India Pharmacy P Limited Vs Hyeto Herbals Private Limited

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. Vs Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Mankind Pharma Limited & Anr. Vs Mainkind Crop Science Private Limited

M/S Delhi Plastichem Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Krishan Kumar

Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. Vs Mantis Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Laborate Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs Mmc Healthcare Limited

Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Cafe Social through Its Proprietor

3D Systems Incorporated Vs the Controller of Patents

Pharmacyclics Llc & Anr. Vs Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft Vs Vishnu Enterprises & Ors.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission Vs Roopika Rastogi and Anr.