High Court of DelhiCS(COMM)/1127/2018

Mr. Sunil Kathuria & ANR. v. Trade Fair Times & ORS.

2024-04-04Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal6 pages

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 1127/2018, I.A. 12801/2018 & I.A. 7527/2024 MR. SUNIL KATHURIA & ANR.

..... Plaintiffs Through:

Ms. Sikha Sachdeva and Ms. Kriti Rathi, Advocates.

versus TRADE FAIR TIMES & ORS.

..... Defendants Through:

Ms. Pragya Mishra, Advocate for D-2.

Mr. Vishal Malhotra, Advocate for D-3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

O R D E R

% 04.04.2024 I.A. 7527/2024 (under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908) 1.

This joint application has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by plaintiffs and defendant no.2, placing terms of settlement on record.

The said application is executed by authorised signatories of the plaintiffs and defendant no.2 as well as countersigned by the respective counsel, and supported by affidavits.

The terms of settlement arrived at between the parties are as under: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Court has perused the terms of settlement and finds the same to be acceptable and lawful. In view of the same, nothing further survives for adjudication.

Parties undertake to be bound by the terms of settlement. 6.

Accordingly, as regards defendant no.2, decree sheet be drawn up by The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

the Registry in terms of the above settlement. 7.

Defendant no.1 was already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 04th December, 2018. As regards, defendant no.1, decree sheet be drawn up by the Registry in terms of prayer A (i) of the suit. 8.

As regards defendant no.3, counsel appears and states that they are merely involved in the execution of the events which were organized by defendant no.2 and therefore, only have a derivative role. Counsel for defendant no.3 states that he has not claimed any right on the impugned marks, to which defendant no.2 has claimed a right to and therefore, may be deleted from the array of the parties. Accordingly, defendant no.3 is deleted from the array of parties.

Decree Sheet be accordingly drawn up.

10.

Since nothing survives for adjudication, the suit stands disposed of. 11.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous. 12.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J APRIL 4, 2024/kct/rj The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.