Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited vs. Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The plaintiff, JK Lakshmi Cement Limited, filed a commercial suit against defendants Mr. Satyawan Seharwat and another (John Doe). The plaintiff alleged infringement of its trademarks. Defendant no. 1 acknowledged infringing the plaintiff's statutory and common law trademark rights. Specifically, defendant no. 1 admitted to wrongly using 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC' as its trade name and obtaining a GST registration under this name. Defendant no. 1 has surrendered the GST number 06ATAPS9978E3Z3, which was obtained using the plaintiff's trade name. The parties have entered into a compromise settlement.
Held
The Court held that the compromise application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC is lawful. Both parties are bound by the terms of the settlement. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 in terms of specified paragraphs of the compromise application and the plaint. Defendant no. 2 being John Doe, the suit could be disposed of upon settlement with defendant no. 1. Consequently, the suit and pending applications were disposed of. The Court found the terms of the settlement to be lawful and directed that the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. No specific issues regarding GST provisions were decided, as the dispute was settled by the parties acknowledging the wrongful use of a trade name for GST registration and subsequent surrender of the GST number.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should decree the suit in terms of the compromise application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, concerning the infringement of the plaintiff's trademarks and the wrongful use of the trade name 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC' by defendant no. 1. Contentions: Petitioner/Plaintiff: Submitted that defendant no. 1 has acknowledged infringement of trademarks and wrongful use of the trade name. The parties have reached a lawful settlement, and the suit should be decreed in terms thereof. They rely on the terms of the compromise application. Revenue/State: No arguments recorded for the Revenue or State as they are not parties to the compromise application. The matter concerns a civil dispute between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 25.02.2025 I.A. 4975/2025 (Application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC)
The present application has been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”), for compromise of the suit filed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1. 2. By way of the present application, it is stated that the defendant no. 1 acknowledges that it has infringed the statutory and common law rights vested in plaintiff’s trademarks, as mentioned in the plaint.
Further, the defendant no. 1 also acknowledges that it has wrongly used ‘J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC’, as its trade name and has also wrongly obtained a GST registration under the said trade name.
Thus, it is submitted that defendant no. 1, in pursuance of the present settlement, has already surrendered the GST number 06ATAPS9978E3Z3, This is a digitally signed order. 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 01/07/2025 at 11:13:22
which was wrongly applied by it under the plaintiff’s trade name.
The terms of the settlement between the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 are contained in Para 4 of the present application.
Learned counsels appearing for the both the parties jointly confirm the terms of the settlement and submit that the suit be decreed, in terms thereof.
This Court has perused the terms of the settlement and finds the same to be lawful.
Both the parties are held bound by the terms of the settlement.
Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 in terms of Paras 4 (a) to (i) of the present application, which shall form part of the decree and paras 67 (a), (b), (c) and (g) of the plaint.
Let decree sheet be drawn up.
Defendant no. 2 is John Doe. Accordingly, the suit can be disposed of upon the plaintiff entering into a settlement with defendant no. 1. 12. Consequently, the present suit, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.
The next date of hearing of 04th March, 2025, stands cancelled. MINI PUSHKARNA, J FEBRUARY 25, 2025 ak This is a digitally signed order. 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 01/07/2025 at 11:13:22
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.