Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Levi Strauss & Co vs Bansal Texfab Private Limited on 27 August, 2021

Author: Jayant Nath

Bench: Jayant Nath

                          $~OS-3
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    CS(COMM) 142/2021
                               LEVI STRAUSS & CO.                         ..... Plaintiff
                                             Through Mr.Dushyant K.Mahant, Adv.
                                             versus
                               BANSAL TEXFAB PRIVATE LIMITED           ..... Defendant
                                             Through Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Adv. with
                                                     Ms.Tina Garg, Adv. alongwith
                                                     Sh.Lavish Bansal in person.

                                CORAM:
                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
                                        ORDER

% 27.08.2021 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.

1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC read with Contempt of Courts Act for alleged wilful violations of the order of this court dated 25.03.2021.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that this court on 25.03.2021 passed interim orders against the defendant from using the defendant's LEVIZO Device mark and tab devices .

3. This court also appointed a local commissioner to visit the premises of the defendant in Ludhiana, Punjab and take into possession and make inventory of all infringing unfinished and semi-finished goods bearing the defendant's mark or any similar variants. The learned local commissioner was also to seize and seal the articles and hand over the same to the defendant/occupants of the premises on superdari with an undertaking to be produced in the court as and when called upon.

4. It is stated that the learned local commissioner alongwith the representatives of the plaintiff on 31.03.2021 visited the premises in question at 738/15A, Street No. 4, Manna Singh Nagar, Opposite Chand Cinema, Ludhiana, Punjab. It appears that defendant had shifted from there to a new address. The local commissioner visited the said new place as per orders of this court and has reported some obstructions in carrying out of the commission.

5. As directed by this court Mr.Lavish Bansal of the defendant company is present in person through video conferencing.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.Lavish Bansal states that he was wrongly advised and seeks an unconditional apology.

7. A perusal of the report of the local commissioner shows the following observations:

".......

That the undersigned along with the counsels for the plaintiff, reached the said premises at about 8:30 PM and decided to inspect the premises and identified the goods containing the infringed marks. It was found by the undersigned, that there were more than 60,000 pieces of packed garments along with the boxes. On inspection, it was found that the infringed marks were present on the garments as well as the packaging material.

The undersigned clicked some photos of the infringe marks and goods. The owner of the company was then called at the premises for the seizure of the goods. Mr. Bansal reached the premises at about 9:05 pm, a copy of the order was provided and the order was explained to him. The photos of the infringing goods are being annexed and marked as "Annexure A".

Mr.Bansal objected to the raid alleging that the address mentioned in the Order is different, also the premises was rented LA Wellness and not to the defendant company and since LA Wellness is not a party to the suit, this premises was outside of the purview of the courts Order. Counsel of Mr.Bansal was unable to reach the premises but was in contact telephonically with him. After some discussions with Mr.Bansal and his counsel no consensus was reached. He was appraised of the fact that he may be subjected to contempt proceedings if he did not allow the raid to be carried out but Mr.Bansal was reluctant alleging that the premises is outside the purview of the court's order and did not allow the undersigned to carry out the raid. Thereafter spot proceedings and an attendance sheet containing the names and signatures of the persons present at the premises was drawn. A copy of the proceedings and the attendance sheet along with its true typed copy is being annexed along with its true typed copy marked as "Annexure B (Colly)".

The undersigned along with the counsels for the plaintiff left the said premises at about 10:15 PM."

8. It is manifest that there is a prima facie case of obstructing the local commissioner in completing the commission as directed by this court. However, keeping in view the apology of the defendant, the present application is disposed of with following directions:

i) Mr.Lavish Bansal will file an affidavit seeking an unconditional apology and will undertake to abide by the interim orders of this court Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:01.09.2021 11:02:41 dated 25.03.2021.

ii) Mr.Lavish Bansal will also pay costs of Rs.3 lakhs to the plaintiff within two weeks from today.

9. Subject to the above directions, the present application is disposed of. CS(COMM) 142/2021 Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant would like to try and settle the matter through mediation.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that he has no objection to the submission of the learned senior counsel for the defendant.

Let the parties appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, New Delhi on 10.09.2021 at 3:00 PM.

List in court on 16.11.2021.

JAYANT NATH, J.

AUGUST 27, 2021/v Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NIRMLA TIWARI Signing Date:01.09.2021 11:02:41