Lammertz Industrieenadel Gmbh v. Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd.

Madras HC20 Feb 2024COM APEL/28/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On settlement, the Court dismissed the Company Appeal and disposed of the civil suit against defendants bound by the accord. The suit continues only against parties 8 and 9 who opposed settlement. Compliance of payment terms contingent on RBI clearances is directed to be reported on 04.11.2024. Settlement is subject to stay revived.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dismissed as settled. Suit disposed of against settling parties. Liberty granted to continue suit against defendants 8 and 9.

Lammertz Industrieenadel Gmbh Vs Altek Lammertz Needles… — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 20.02.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶7

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009

¶8

1.Lammertz Industrienadel GmbH

¶9

a company incorporated under laws of Germany and having its principal office at Reichsweg 19-42 Aachen, Germany. ... Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd., represented by its Managing Director and Company Secretary Mr.S. Ganesh having its registered office at Flat No.30, Padmalaya Towers, 64, Janaki Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai - 600 028.

¶12

2 Mr.S. Ganesh, Flat No.30, Padmalaya Towers 64, Janaki Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai-600 028.

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

1/9

¶15

Mrs. Rajalakshmi Ganesh Flat No.30, Padmalaya Towers, 64, Janaki Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai-600028

¶16

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶17

Madras Needles Pvt. Limited having its registered office at 3/27, Vandalur Road, Keelambakkam Kancheepuram District

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

Prayer : This appeal is filed under Section 10 F of the Companies Act, 1956 to set aside the impugned order of the CLB and allow the petition filed by the Appellant before the CLB and further direct the Respondents to sell their shareholding in Altek to Lammertz (to be valued on the basis of the shareholding as it existed prior to the issuance of shares to Madras Needles) and pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit.

¶20

For Appellant : Mr.C.D. Mulherkar For Respondents : Ms.Jayanthi Venkatesh

¶21

C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶22

M/s.Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.S. Ganesh Flat 3 C Padmalaya Towers, 64, Janaki Avenue, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028. . ... Plaintiff

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

2/9

¶25

Vs.

¶26

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶27

1. M/s. Rheinnadel GMBH, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.K.P. Pavel, Reichsweg 19 - 42, 52015, Aachen, Germany. 2. M/s.Rhein-Maschienenadel GmbH, Rep. By its Managing Director, Mr.G F Krieger, Postfach, 1408, 52015, Aachen, Reichsweg 19 - 42, Germany. 3. M/s.Lammertz Industrienadel Gmbh., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr.G.F. Krieger Reichsweg 19 - 42, 52015, Aachen, Germany. 4. Beka Maschienenadel GmbH, Reichsweg 19 - 42, 52015, Aachen, Germany. 5. Muva Maschienenadel GmbH, Reichsweg 19 – 42, 52015, Aachen, Germany. 6. Mr.K.P. Pavel Reichsweg 19-42, 52015, Aachen, Germany.

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

3/9

¶30

7. Mr. G. F. Krieger Reichsweg 19 – 42, 52015, Aachen, Germany.

¶31

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶32

8. M/s.Groz Beckert KG, D-72458, Albstadt, Parksweg2, Germany.

¶33

9. M/s.Groz Beckert Asia Ltd., 133-134, Industrial Area Chandigarh, India.

¶34

. .. Defendants.

¶35

PRAYER :-PLAINT FILED UNDER ORDER IV RULE 1 OF THE O.S. RULES READ WITH SECTION 134 AND 134 OF TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999, AND ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 to pass a judgment and decree:

¶36

(a) Declaring (that the agreement between the Rheinnadel group and the 8 th defendant purporting to sell the trade marks Beka, Muva, Lammertz and Rhein and the machinery of the former to the 8 th defendant is illegal.

¶37

(b) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to exclusively use the trademarks Beka, Muva, Rhein and Lammertz until the year 2010 in terms of the agreements between the Rheinnadel group (defendants 1 to 5 herein) and the plaintiff, and in terms of the agreement embodied in the 4/9

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶40

minutes of the meeting dated 29 th August 2000;

¶41

(c) permanent injunction restraining the defendants and its nominees and assignees from using, assigning or interfering with the use of the marks Lammertz, Rhein, Beka, Muva by the plaintiff for sewing machine needles during the aforesaid period

¶42

(d) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to supply the machinery agreed to be supplied by the defendants 1 to 5 under the machinery supply agreement dated 17.12.1998;

¶43

(e) costs of the suit;

¶44

(f) pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶45

For Plaintiff : Ms.Jayanthi Venkatesh For Defendants : Mr.C.D. Mulherkar

¶46

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶47

The plaintiff and the defendants, excepting for defendants 8 & 9

¶48

in the suit C.S. No.953 of 2003 have amicably resolved the dispute

¶49

amongst themselves. The learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶50

parties who have amicably resolved the dispute amongst themselves have

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

5/9

¶53

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶54

filed a Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024, which is taken on

¶55

record. The Settlement Agreement has been signed by the plaintiff's authorised representative and the 3 rd defendant's authorised representative and their signatures have been attested by witnesses, one on the side of the plaintiff and the other on the side of the 3 rd defendant in the suit. The 3 rd defendant is the appellant in Company Appeal No.28 of 2009, which is also listed before this Court today, pursuant to the administrative directions issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

¶56

2. The Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and the C.S. No.953 of 2003 are connected matters.

¶57

3. As seen from the terms of Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024, which has been placed on record before this Court, payments will have to be made by the plaintiff in the suit C.S.No.953 of 2003 to the 3 rd defendant and the said payments depends upon obtaining statutory clearances from Reserve Bank of India and other statutory authorities. As seen from the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024, the plaintiff in C.S. No.953 of 2003 desires to continue the prosecution of the suit in C.S. No.953 of 2003 as against defendants 8 & 9 as they have not agreed for any amicable settlement.

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶59

6/9

¶60

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶61

4. In terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024, the suit C.S. No.953 of 2003 filed against the defendants 1 to 7 shall stand disposed of. The Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024 shall form part of this Judgement. Similarly, the Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 filed by the 3 rd defendant in the suit C.S. No.953 of 2003, who is a party to the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024 is dismissed as settled out of Court in terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024. However in view of the fact that certain payments agreed upon to be paid

¶62

by the plaintiff in the suit C.S. No.953 of 2003 to the 3 rd defendant depends upon the obtaining statutory clearances from the Reserve Bank of India and other statutory authorities, the suit C.S. No.953 of 2003 is directed to be listed by the Registry “for reporting compliance” on 04.11.2024 as the deadline for making the payments falls on 31.10.2024.

¶63

5. Post the matter for reporting compliance of the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024 on 04.11.2024 . However, it is made clear that in case payments have not made by the plaintiff in C.S. No.953 of 2003 to the defendant in terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024, the 3 rd defendant is granted liberty to revive the Company 7/9

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶66

Appeal viz., Company Appeal No.28 of 2009. The Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024 holds good for all the defendants excepting the 8 th & 9 th defendant. Liberty is granted to both the parties to re agitate their rights as claimed in the suit as well as in the Company Appeal, in case there is a breach committed by one of the parties to the Settlement Agreement, dated 14.01.2024. The suit shall continue as against 8 th & 9 th defendants alone.

¶67

20.02.2024

¶68

Index: Yes/ No Speaking order / Non speaking order Neutral citation : Yes / No vsi2

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

8/9

¶71

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶72

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶73

vsi2

¶74

Company Appeal No.28 of 2009 and C.S. No.953 of 2003

¶75

20.02.2024

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

9/9

Lammertz Industrieenadel Gmbh v. Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lammertz Industrieenadel Gmbh v. Altek Lammertz Needles Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveel Danish Vs Cothuru Venkatesh Balaji (Mr.C.v.Balaji)

M/S. Raj Petro Specialities Vs M/S. Victory Electricals Ltd.

Pers Enterprises Private Ltd. Vs Aavanor Systems LLP

Mahendra Lokiah Vs K Shivashankar

Jayaram Electricals Private Ltd. Vs Ferdous Hotel Private Limited

Sanal Kumar Vs S Kishore