Aasife Biriyani (P) Ltd., v. Alif Foods

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 17.11.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and O.A.Nos.542 to 544 of 2022 & A.No.3761 of 2022 in Aasife Biriyani (P) Ltd., Glrs No.35, D.No.11/3Q, Railway Station Road Alandur, Chennai-600 016 Tamil Nadu, India.

.. Plaintiff Vs.

ALIF FOODS Old No.51/7, 51/3f, 51/3b New Survey No.86/4 and 86/7 Poonamalle High Road NoombalMadula Velapanchavadi Chennai-600 077 Tamil Nadu, India.

..

Defendant This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC read with Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Sections 27, 29, 134 and 135 of Trademark Act, 1999, Sections 51, 55 and 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, praying Page Nos.1/13

(i) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from infringing the registered trademark "AASIFE" of the plaintiff having registration Number 3768877, or any other word / words / logo / artistic work / design / device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said registered trademark of the plaintiff in Class 43, and thereby restraining the defendant from infringing the registered trademark of the plaintiff, in any manner;

(ii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representative and any other person passing off his / their services by using the word mark "Aasifaa Biriyani" or label work "AASIFE", artistic work or any other word / words / logo / artistic work / design / device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said mark of the plaintiff in respect of providing food and drinks, temporary accommodation, and thereby restraining the defendant in any manner from passing off;

(iii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendant, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from violating the copyright of the plaintiff by using the artistic work or any other logo / artistic work / design / device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said copyright of the plaintiff, and thereby restraining the defendant from in any manner violating the copyright of the plaintiff; Page Nos.2/13

(iv) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to render a true and faithful accounts of all profit made by them, using the plaintiff's said Trademark & Copyright and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profit thus found to have been made by the defendant, together with interest, after the defendant has rendered accounts;

(b) and costs of suits;

For Plaintiff :

Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy M/s.Mission Legal (Law Firm) For Defendant :

Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

J U D G M E N T

This consent judgment and common order will now dispose of the captioned main suit and captioned four applications.

2. In this judgment / order, parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. Today, captioned matter is listed under the cause list caption 'FOR REPORTING SETTLEMENT'.

Page Nos.3/13

4. Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy along with Ms.Hansika .N, learned counsel of M/s.Mission Legal (Law Firm) for plaintiff company and Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel on record for lone defendant are before this Commercial Division.

5. Learned counsel on both sides submit in one voice that lis has since been settled between the plaintiff company and defendant. It is further submitted by both sides in unison that the parties have reduced the terms of settlement to writing by way of an agreement captioned 'JOINT COMPROMISE MEMO FILED BY THE PARTIES' and dated 14.11.2022 [hereinafter 'said JMOC' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

6. Aforementioned both learned counsel make a further joint request that the captioned suit may please be disposed of by way of a compromise decree in terms of said JMOC.

7. To be noted, a scanned reproduction of said JMOC (together with annexures and docket) is as follows:

Page Nos.4/13

Page Nos.5/13

Page Nos.6/13

Page Nos.7/13

Page Nos.8/13

Page Nos.9/13

Page Nos.10/13

8. Both learned counsel also submit that the captioned applications can be closed as a sequitur. As regards the presence of parties, both sides make a request for dispensing with presence of parties and make the following submissions in this regard: (a) parties have difficulty in being present before this Commercial Division today owing to personal reasons;

(b) said JMOC was signed by both sides in the presence of one another;

(c) Mr.C.Y.Aasifie, Managing Director of plaintiff company who has signed / verified the pleadings i.e., plaint and Mr.A.Noor Ali, who has signed the defendant's Vakalatnama in his capacity as partner of defendant firm has signed said JMOC also.

9. This Court has perused the signatures in the plaint, vakalatnama and said JMOC.

Page Nos.11/13

10. Considering the nature of the suit, the trajectory the matter has taken besides the nature of said JMOC i.e., terms of compromise that have been arrived at, in this case prayer for dispensing with the presence of parties is acceded to.

11. The sequitur is, captioned main suit will stand decreed in terms of said JMOC which shall now form part of judgment / decree. Consequently, captioned four applications are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

17.11.2022 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order mk Page Nos.12/13

M.SUNDAR, J.

mk and O.A.Nos.542 to 544 of 2022 & A.No.3761 of 2022 in 17.11.2022 Page Nos.13/13