G.Saravanan v. R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29.08.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Appeal(CAD) No.3 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.20069 of 2022 G.Saravanan ...Appellant/Defendant Vs.

M/s.R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar, Rep., by its partner S.Bhasker, 138, Muthur Raod, Kangeyam, Tiruppur District-638 701, Tamil Nadu.

... Respondent/Plaintiff Appeal filed under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 r/w Order XLI of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022 passed in C.O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruppur.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Diwakar 1/8

For Respondent : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.,) The captioned Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2022 passed in C.O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur.

2.The respondent herein as plaintiff filed a suit for Infringement of Copyright and passing off in respect of the impugned mark vide C.O.S.No.17 of 2021 before the Principal District Court, Tiruppur. 3.The above suit is decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgement and decree dated 18.10.2022, granting a permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from using the impugned trade mark. 4.The respondent/plaintiff also filed a rectification petition vide O.P(TM)No.3 of 2023 to remove the impugned trade Mark from the Register 2/8

of the Trade Mark Registry.

5.The appellant/defendant, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree has preferred the present appeal before this Court.

6. After appearance of the respondent, the learned counsel for the respective parties namely Mr.S.Diwakar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that with a view to give quietus to the matter, the parties have agreed to settle their disputes amicably and reduced the terms in writing by way of a Joint Memorandum. The scanned reproduction of the joint memorandum of compromise is as hereunder:

3/8

4/8

5/8

7.The said joint memorandum of compromise has been signed by both parties and counter signed by their respective counsel. The appellant namely G.Saravanan is before us in the physical Court, whereas, the respondent namely R.K.Ganapathy Chettiar, represented by its partner 6/8

S.Bhasker appeared through Video conferencing and the parties identified each other and also the parties were identified by their respective counsel. After interacting with the parties, we are satisfied that the parties have voluntarily entered into joint memorandum of compromise. Hence, we are inclined to accept it.

8.In view of the above, this captioned Appeal is disposed of in terms of compromise and the same will form part of the decree. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[M.S.,J] [K.G.T.,J] 29.08.2024 vsn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order 7/8

M.SUNDAR,J.

and K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

vsn Appeal(CAD).No.3 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.20069 of 2022 29.08.2024 8/8