Delhi District Court
Gagan Singhal vs Virender Hans on 13 February, 2025
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-004741-2023
CS (Comm.) No.392/2023
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Shri Gagan Singhal,
B-10, Ground Floor,
Vijay Vihar, Phase-II, North-West,
New Delhi-110085.
E.Mail: [email protected]
.....Plaintiff
(Through Ms.Swapnil Gaur, Advocate)
Versus
Shri Virender Hans,
House No.174, Shakti Puram,
Kunj Pura Road, Part-1, Rural,
Karnal, Haryana-132001.
E.Mail: [email protected]
.....Defendant
(Ex-parte vide order dated 19.09.2024)
SUIT AGAINST GROUNDLESS THREATS UNDER SECTION 142 OF
THE TRADEMARKS ACT, 1999
13.02.2025
JUDGMENT IN TERMS OF ORDER XIII-A CPC
1. This is a suit filed U/s 142 of Trademarks Act, 1999, inter alia
seeking permanent injunction, thereby restraining the defendant and/or
anyone acting for and on its behalf from hampering the business of the
plaintiff or issuing groundless threats to the plaintiff, its subsidiaries,
business associates, etc. in respect of plaintiff's use of the marks
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
YADAV Page 1 of 20
YADAV 17:16:38 +0530
Date: 2025.02.13
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
and/or 'AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN' and/or any similar
marks adopted and used by the plaintiff; damages etc.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are
that plaintiff/Shri Gagan Singhal, being proprietor of M/s GNS Products is
engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of incense sticks,
fragrance preparations, Guggal, Pooja Samagri, Hawan Samagri, agarbatti,
dhoop batti as well as loban, and other related products since the year 1985
and also been exporting the same globally.
3. It is stated that in course of trade as also in common practice,
plaintiff has adopted words such as, "kondru" "phool" "loban" for its
products, being commonly used words for traditional and religious rituals,
fragrance preparations, etc.
4. It is claimed that in order to protect its rights in such marks,
plaintiff had also filed several trademark applications with the Trademark
Registry, details of which are given hereunder:
Sr. No. TM No. Class Trade Mark Status
GNS
Registered with
1. 4353752 3 user since
01-04-1985
2. 5116053 1 GNS PRODUCTS Registered
Page 2 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
GNS AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN
Registered but
rectification
4. 4980575 3
filed by
Defendant
Opposed by the
5. 3871053 3
Defendant
5. It is stated that during the course of trade/business as also in
common practice, plaintiff adopted words such as, "kondru" "phool"
"loban" for its products, being commonly used words for traditional and
religious rituals, fragrance preparations, etc.
6. It is averred that plaintiff's mark has become
a house mark and developed into a well-known brand in the market known
for their superior and high quality. It is claimed that the products of
plaintiff are much sought owing to its premium quality, experienced
workforce, robust infrastructure experienced R & D department, large
production capacity, competitive prices and a remarkable ability to take up
bulk orders.
Page 3 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
7. Defendant/Shri Virender Hans, who is stated to be proprietor
of M/s Coral Sales is engaged in the similar business/trade as that of
plaintiff relating to sale of loban, guggal, pooja samagri, tantra, mantra and
yantara products for Hawan, fragrance preparations etc.
8. It is averred that defendant is the proprietor of the registered
mark in Class 3, bearing TM No.4038550, against
which petitioner had already preferred a petition under Section 57 of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inter alia
praying for cancellation of the same.
9. It is further averred that in the month of April' 2023, plaintiff
received a legal notice from defendant asserting exclusive rights in the
words "Phool" and "Loban" on the basis of its registered device mark
and directing the plaintiff to cease and desist from
using the plaintiff's registered mark and the mark
AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN or any mark bearing the words "Phool" and
"Loban" being deceptively similar to the defendant's mark
Page 4 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
. The defendant further threatened to take civil and
criminal action against the plaintiff unless plaintiff cease and desist from
use of their registered mark and also demanded that plaintiff withdraw all
its products bearing such marks from the market. It is also averred that
defendant also filed a baseless rectification against the plaintiff's registered
mark on the basis of impugned mark and claiming exclusive right in the
words PHOOL and LOBAN.
10. It is claimed that defendant's mark is non-distinctive,
descriptive and consisting solely of elements common to the trade and
defendant has been trying to create an unfair monopoly over commonly
used words where none can exist, restricting bona fide users such as the
plaintiff from using such words being publici juris. The defendant is not
having any registration for the word mark PHOOL LOBAN.
11. (i) It is worthwhile to note that alongwith the instant suit,
plaintiff had also filed an application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, inter
alia confining his relief that the defendant should give atleast 7 days prior
written notice to the plaintiff before initiating any legal proceedings in any
Court or claiming any interim relief against the plaintiff as threatened in
the legal notice issued on behalf of defendant against plaintiff's use of
mark AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN.
Page 5 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
(ii) Vide detailed order dated 26.05.2023, my learned Predecessor
refused to grant ex-parte injunction to the plaintiff, however, notice of the
instant suit for a short date was issued to the defendant.
12. (i) Pursuant to the service of summons, defendant for the first
time appeared before the Court on 19.07.2023. Thereafter, the written
statement was filed by the defendant on 12.01.2024, which was clearly
beyond the period of 120 days. The defendant accordingly preferred an
application U/o VIII Rule 1 CPC, inter alia seeking condonation of delay
in filing the written statement. While relying upon the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "Civil Appeal
No.1638/2019)", titled as, "M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. V/s K.S
Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." (DOD: 12.02.2019) vide order
dated 19.09.2024, said application was dismissed.
(ii) Further, since no appearance was put forth on behalf of
defendant in the Court on 19.09.2024, accordingly vide order 19.09.2024
defendant was also proceeded "ex-parte" and the matter was notified for
ex-parte PE.
(iii) Thereafter, vide order dated 29.11.2024, Ms.Jahanvi Sharma,
Advocate was appointed as "Local Commissioner" to record ex-parte
plaintiff's evidence in the matter.
13. Since the defendant had been proceeded "ex-parte" in the
matter vide order dated 19.09.2024 and written statement on his behalf was
also directed not to be taken on record, plaintiff accordingly preferred an
application under Order XIII-A CPC inter alia praying for passing of
Page 6 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
summary judgment in the matter. Alongwith the said application, plaintiff
also filed copies of two orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in
following cases, which I will deal with in the later part of this judgment.
(i) Copy of order dated 14.05.2024, passed in CO (Comm.IPD-
TM) No.145/2023, titled as, "Gagan Singhal V/s Registrar of
Trademarks & Anr.";
(ii) Copy of order dated 22.02.2024, passed in CO (Comm.IPD-
TM) No.152/2023, titled as, "Gagan Singhal V/s Registrar of
Trademarks & Anr.".
14. I have heard Ms.Swapnil Gaur, Advocate, learned counsel for
the plaintiff and gone through the entire material on record.
15. It has been very vehemently argued by learned counsel for the
plaintiff that there is no need to record evidence in the matter. In support
of her contentions, she has relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.1203/2018", titled as,
"AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & Ors. V/s Gyan Singh & Anr."
(DOD: 25.04.2023);
(b) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.478/2019", titled as,
"Sandisk LLC V/s Amit & Ors." (DOD: 01.03.2023);
(c) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.564/2020", titled as,
"Imagine Marketing Private Ltd. V/s M/s Green Accessories
Through Its Proprietor & Anr." (DOD: 21.03.2022);
(d) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.675/2019", titled as,
"Dhani Loans And Services Limited & Anr. V/s
WWW.Dhanifinance.Com & Ors." (DOD: 12.10.2022);
(e) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.929/2018", titled as,
"Sanofi & Anr. V/s Faisal Mushtaq & Ors." (DOD: 16.11.2018);
Page 7 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
(f) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.413/2021", titled as, "LT
Foods Limited V/s Saraswati Trading Company" (DOD:
11.11.2022);
(g) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.1219/2018", titled as,
"Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/s Parul Food Products V/s
M/s Gurudev Industries" (DOD: 20.12.2018) and;
(h) Case reported as, "CS (OS) No.3466/2012", titled as, "Disney
Enterprises Inc. & Anr. V/s Balraj Muttneja & Ors." (DOD:
20.02.2014).
16. Amended Order XIIIA of CPC, as applicable to commercial
disputes, enables the Court to decide a claim or part thereof without
recording oral evidence. Order XIIIA of CPC seeks to avoid the long
drawn process of leading oral evidence in certain eventualities.
Consequently, the said provision enables disposal of commercial disputes
in a time bound manner and promotes the object of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015.
17. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of CPC empowers the Court to grant a
summary judgment against a defendant where on an application filed in
that regard, the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospect of
successfully defending a claim and there is no other compelling reason as
to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence. Order XIIIA (3) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes,
is reproduced herein below:-
xxxxx
"3. Grounds for summary judgment.--The Court may
give a summary judgment against a plaintiff or
Page 8 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
defendant on a claim if it considers that-
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on
the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of
successfully defending the claim, as the case may be;
and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim
should not be disposed of before recording of oral
evidence."
xxxxx
18. Now, coming back to the facts of the present case. The learned
counsel for the plaintiff has made a strong pitch that plaintiff is the
registered proprietor of mark vide Trademark Application
No.4980575 and is entitled to use the same alongwith words AMRAVATI
PHOOL LOBAN. It is submitted that in order to harass the plaintiff, the
defendant had preferred a rectification petition against the said mark,
which is stated to be pending adjudication before the Trademark Registry.
19. The learned counsel for the plaintiff further very vehemently
argued that the device mark of defendant is made up of the elements which
are entirely publici juris and common to the trade. As such, it has been
contended that no monopoly can be claimed by the defendant over the
words "Phool" and "Loban".
20. (i) I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the
plaintiff. It is matter of record that petitioner utilizes the device mark
Page 9 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
, which is lying registered under No.4980575 in Class 3
for the sale of products such as loban, guggal, pooja samagri, fragrance
preparations, which are used in traditional rituals and religious ceremonies.
It is further a matter of record that the said registration is currently under
challenge by defendant, by way of rectification bearing No.278655 before
the Registrar of Trade Marks. The plaintiff herein had also received a
legal notice dated 24.03.2023 from defendant alleging infringement and
passing off.
(ii) Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of defendant, plaintiff
herein preferred a petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, being
CO (Comm.IPD-TM) No.145/2023, titled as, "Gagan Singhal V/s
Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.", thereby invoking Section 57 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999, inter alia seeking cancellation of defendant's registration
under TM No.4038550 in Class 3 for the mark "PHOOL LOBAN" /
. The defendant neither appeared before the Hon'ble
High Court nor filed any reply to the said petition. The defendant was
accordingly proceeded "ex-parte" and the Hon'ble High Court vide order
dated 14.05.2024, passed in the aforesaid petition has been pleased to
categorically direct as under:
Page 10 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
xxxxx
3. Ms. Sugandh Shahi, counsel for Petitioner,
contends that both the words "PHOOL" and
"LOBAN" are generic terms that either signify the
product itself or its elements. She submits that the
goods to which the Impugned Mark is applied are
sold mainly for their fragrance profile. "PHOOL",
being the Hindi term for 'flower', is used to describe
the kind of fragrance, whereas "LOBAN" is the
finished product for which the Impugned Mark is
used, which is burnt for pleasant fragrance,
particularly during religious ceremonies. To buttress
her submissions, Ms. Shahi points to the description
of goods in respect of which the Impugned Mark has
been granted registration, viz. "Loban, Google,
Pooja Products, Tantar Mantar Products and other
items of Pooja Samagri included in Class 3".
4. Further, to demonstrate that the word
"LOBAN" is publici juris, Ms.Shahi has handed
over certain additional documents, which are taken
on record. Petitioner has produced an article in
Hindi language posted on the website of Dainik
Jagran that explains the benefits of using Loban.
Additionally, reliance is placed upon to the
numerous listings that appeared as search results of
"LOBAN" products on IndiaMart, an e-commerce
website.
5. Having considered the above-noted
contentions and examined the material on record,
the Court is of the opinion that while Respondent
No. 2 can attain proprietary rights over the device "
" as a whole, no exclusivity can Page 11 of 20 CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 be claimed over its constituent terms, namely "PHOOL" and "LOBAN", in both English and Devnagri script. Accordingly, the Registrar of Trademarks is directed to issue a disclaimer under Section 18(4) of the Act in respect of registered trademark No. 4038550 for the mark "
" in Class 3, clarifying that Respondent No. 2/ proprietor of the mark shall not have any exclusive rights over the words "PHOOL", "LOBAN", "लोबान" and "फू ल".
6. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.
xxxxx
(iii) It is worthwhile to mention here that somewhat similar observations have been made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in other connected petition bearing CO (Comm.) No.152/2023, titled as, "Gagan Singhal V/s Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.", whereby vide order dated 22.02.2024, the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to order that respondent No.2 (defendant herein) shall not have any exclusive rights over the words "KONDRU" and "LOBAN". For ready reference, the operative part of order dated 22.02.2024 is re-produced hereunder:
xxxxx
5. Having considered the above-noted contentions and examined the record,the Court is of the opinion that while Respondent No. 2 can attain proprietary rights over the device "Page 12 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 "
as a whole, no exclusivity can be claimed over its constituent terms, namely "KONDRU" and "LOBAN" in both English and Devnagri script. Accordingly, the Registrar of Trademarks is directed to issue a disclaimer under Section 18(4) of the Trademarks Act in respect of trademark No. 4040405 for the mark "
"
in class 03, clarifying that Respondent No.2/proprietor of the mark shall not have any exclusive rights over the words "KONDRU", "LOBAN", "लोबान" "को ".
6. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.
xxxxx
21. (i) From the aforesaid, it is clearly evident that expression/words "Phool Loban" used in the mark by plaintiff is quite clearly a common, descriptive expression/adjective and not a coined word and at best can be a combination of two popular Hindi words, which are descriptive of the nature of product. It is noted that the plaintiff uses the word "AMRAVATI" in conjunction with the words PHOOL and LOBAN, thus making the mark distinctive as AMRAVATI is neither descriptive nor common to the trade. Thus, the defendant's claim of the Plaintiff' mark AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN being deceptively similar to the defendant's mark is unfounded and unsubstantiated.
(ii) Further, it is also clearly evident from the material produced Page 13 of 20 CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 on record that unlike the defendant's mark , the plaintiff's mark consists of the plaintiff's well known house mark as well as the word "AMRAVATI" making the mark distinctive, whereas the defendant's mark is made entirely up of elements being common to the trade and descriptive.
(iii) Even the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 14.05.2024, passed in CO (Comm.IPD-TM) No.145/2023, titled as, "Gagan Singhal V/s Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.", has been pleased to categorically direct that defendant shall not have any exclusive rights over the words "PHOOL", "LOBAN", "लोबान" and "फू ल".
22. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I am of the considered opinion that there is no real prospect of defendant succeeding in proving his defence, as he is already lying proceeded "ex-parte" vide order dated 19.09.2024 and even the written statement filed on his behalf has been directed not to be taken on record. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to meander mindlessly in Court and to clog the justice delivery system.
Page 14 of 20CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 Therefore, in my opinion, present is a fit case where the Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in case reported as, "2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764", titled as, "Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. V/s Kunwer Sachdev", wherein the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx "90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm.
91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgement against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression "real" directs the Court to examine whether there is a "realistic" as opposed to "fanciful" prospects of success. This Court is of the view that the expression "no genuine issue requiring a trial" in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and "no other compelling reason.....for trial" in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis.
Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more Page 15 of 20 CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result.
92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim."
xxxxx
23. Considering the present case on the touchstone of the law laid down in the above referred judgments, I find that no useful purpose would be served, firstly by framing the issue with regard to grant of damages & cost and then asking the plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter. I am further of the considered opinion that there is no defence available on record on part of defendant which debars the plaintiff from claiming decree in the matter, as there is no real prospect of defendant successfully defending his claim in view of he having been lying proceeded "ex-parte"
in the matter. On the other hand, taking into account the documents relied upon by the plaintiff, it is observed that plaintiff has a good case and no useful purpose would be served by going to trial in the matter. I order accordingly.
24. As regards the damages claimed for by the plaintiff, it is noted that The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 provide guidance on the manner in which the damages could be calculated in such cases. Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 is set out below:
Page 16 of 20CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 xxxxx "20. Damages/Account of profits:A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational facts/account statements in respect thereof along with any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall consider the following factors while determining the quantum of damages:
(i) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;
(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;
(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may have earned through royalties/license fees, had the use of the subject IPR been duly authorized;
(iv) The duration of the infringement;
(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the infringement;
(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the damages being incurred by the injured party; In the computation of damages, the Court may take the assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31 of these Rules.
xxxxx
25. Further, on the aspect of damages, in case reported as, "2019:DHC:2185", tilted as, "Koninlijke Philips and Ors. V/s Amazestore & Ors.", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down certain standards for grant of damages in following terms:
xxxxx "41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the rule of thumb that should be followed while granting damages can be summarized in a chart as under:--Page 17 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 # Degree of malafide conduct Proportionate award
(i) First time innocent infringer Injunction
(ii) First-time knowing infringer Injunction + partial costs
(iii) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs + partial causes minor impact to the plaintiff damages
(iv) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs+ causes major impact to the plaintiff compensatory damages
(v) Infringement which was deliberate Injunction + Costs + and calculated Aggravated damages (gangster/scam/mafia) + wilfful (compensatory + additional contempt of Court damages)
42. It is clarified that the above chart is illustrative and is not to be read as a statutory provision. The Courts are free to deviate from the same for good reason."
xxxxx
26. Taking a holistic view of the matter vis-a-vis provisions as laid down under Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 and applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of "Koninlijke Philips" (supra), I am of the considered opinion that grant of damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly.
27. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i) A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant, its principal officers, directors, agents, family members, servants, dealers, distributors, affiliates, sister concerns and/ or anyone acting for and on its behalf from hampering the business of Page 18 of 20 CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025 the plaintiff and/or issuing groundless threats to the plaintiff, its subsidiaries, business associates, etc. in respect of plaintiff's use of the marks and/or 'AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN' and/or any similar marks adopted and used by the Plaintiff;
(ii) A decree is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and the threats issued by the defendant against the use of the plaintiff's marks and/or 'AMRAVATI PHOOL LOBAN'/ 'PHOOL LOBAN' are hereby declared as being groundless, unjustified and illegal;
(iii) A decree in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff on account of groundless and illegal threats issued by defendant, is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant;
(iv) Plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the proceedings, which will include actual cost incurred by the plaintiff as also the counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Only).Page 19 of 20
CS No.392/2023: Gagan Singhal V/s Virender Hans: DOD: 13.02.2025
28. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
29. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
VINOD Digitally signed
by VINOD YADAV
YADAV Date: 2025.02.13
17:16:46 +0530
Announced in the (Vinod Yadav)
open Court on 13.02.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts
Page 20 of 20