Delhi High Court - Orders
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited vs M/S Skynet Placements & Ors on 14 September, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS (COMM) 483/2021 and I.A. 12949/2021
MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Advocate.
(M:9818758576)
versus
M/S SKYNET PLACEMENTS & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Vihan Dang, Ms. Aditi Umapathy
and Mr. Parva Khara, Advocates for
D-5. (M:9971586598)
Mr. Kumar Vinayakam Gupta and
Mr. Chadrashekhar C., Advocate for
D-8. (M:9667344683)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 14.09.2022
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present suit has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff - Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. seeking permanent injunction restraining violation and infringement of rights in the registered trademark/ trade name, passing off, misrepresentation etc. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking to restrain Defendant Nos. 1-4 from continuing inter alia with acts of infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trade mark 'MACLEODS'. Defendant Nos. 5-9 are impleaded as proforma defendants for providing necessary details pertaining to Defendant Nos. 1-4 and to effectively implement the orders passed by this Court against Defendant Nos. 1-4.
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.3 - Ms. Divya Srivastava and Defendant No.4 - Mr. Prasoon Tiwari are its ex-employees.
CS(COMM) 483/2021 Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:15.09.2022 16:59:07Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 set up placement agencies i.e., Defendant No.1 - M/s Skynet Placements and Defendant No.2 - M/s Shiv Placement Agency and started offering jobs to individuals by claiming that they belong to the Plaintiff-company. Defendant Nos.1-4 issued fake offer letters to various candidates and extorted money from prospective candidates by delivering false job assurances in the name of the Plaintiff. It is submitted by ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff that four such candidates who made payments to Defendant Nos.1-4, complained to the Plaintiff about the same. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed police complaints.
4. The present suit was then filed on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking injunction against the Defendants from representing themselves as being the Plaintiff. Accordingly, this Court had granted an ex parte injunction order dated 5th October, 2021 in the following terms:
"4. It is prima facie clear that the defendants are using the name and trade mark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The defendants, their directors, proprietors, ete. are restrained by an ex parte injunction from rendering services, offering for sale advertising or promoting under the trade mark MACLEODS or any other mark which is either identical to or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade MACLEODS/
5. Defendants No.8 and 9-ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank are directed to freeze the bank accounts of defendants No. 3 and 4 and file the details as spelt out in prayer
(d) above before this court. Defendants No. 5 and 6 are also directed to disclose full KYC details in terms of CS(COMM) 483/2021 Page 2 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:15.09.2022 16:59:07 prayer (e) above."
5. Pursuant thereto, service has been effected on all Defendants. However, Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not appeared before the Court. The ld. Joint Registrar vide order dated 31st May, 2022 and 2nd August, 2022 closed the right of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to file a written statement.
6. Defendant No.5 - Google India Digital Services Private Limited has filed its written statement. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No.5 submits that all the available details on the Google Pay platform i.e., KYC details available on the Google Pay application have been provided to the Plaintiff. Insofar as bank account numbers of the persons who were using the Google Pay are concerned it is submitted on behalf of Defendant No.5 that the said bank account numbers are not available on its platform as the same cannot be stored owing to the NPCI Unified Payments Interface Procedural Guidelines, 2019.
7. Insofar as the Defendant Nos. 6 to 9 are concerned, Defendant No. 8 - ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, 'ICICI Bank') has placed on record the bank statements of Defendants Nos. 3 and 4. However, Defendant No.9 - HDFC Bank Ltd. (hereinafter, 'HDFC Bank') has not filed any bank statements or confirmed the freezing of the bank account despite service.
8. According, notice is issued through the nominated counsel for HDFC Bank - Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, M/s. SNG & Partners Advocates, Chamber No. 15, Delhi High Court, to obtain the requested information and file the same. As far as ICICI Bank is concerned, the bank statements of the concerned accounts reflect a large amount of monthly deposits and withdrawals.
CS(COMM) 483/2021 Page 3 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:15.09.2022 16:59:079. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff and ICICI Bank to place a chart showing as to what would be the questionable transactions in the bank statements and the total amount in respect thereof.
10. Ld. counsel for the Plaintiff is permitted to serve Mr. Sanjay Gupta (9811152590), Nominated counsel for HDFC.
11. List on 5th December, 2022 for further proceedings.
12. Interim orders to continue.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022 dj/kt CS(COMM) 483/2021 Page 4 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:15.09.2022 16:59:07