Delhi District Court
Hamdard National Foundation India vs Hamdard Imp Pvt. Ltd on 8 August, 2025
DLCT010084202024
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-13, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024
CNR NO.-DLCT-008420-2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
1.Hamdard National Foundation (India) (Through Sh. Javed Akhter, AR/Authorized Signatory) Hamdard Building, 2A/3 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
[email protected] Mob No.: 9953394364
2. Hamdard Laboratories India (Medicine Division) (Through Sh. Javed Akhter, AR/Authorized Signatory) 2A/3 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002.
[email protected] ...... Plaintiffs Versus Hamdard IMF Private Limited (Through its Directors/Authorized Representative) 77/1, Ameerpet SR Nagar, Begumpet, Secundrabad, Hyderabad, Telengana-500016 e-mail: [email protected] ...... Defendant Date of Institution : 30.05.2024 Judgment Reserved on : 05.08.2025 Date of Decision : 08.08.2025 CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 1/22 DLCT010084202024 EX-PRATE JUDGMENT 08.08.2025
1. Brief factual matrix of the case is that this is a commercial suit filed by plaintiffs seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant company and its directors or associates or agents etc. from infringing their trademarks and copyrights in name of 'HAMDARD' and from passing off their goods under the said marks and for claiming some other ancillary and related reliefs.
2. The plaintiff no. 1 Hamdard National Foundation India claims itself to be a charitable institution registered under the Societies Act and the plaintiff no. 2 Hamdard Laboratories India is stated to be the Medicine Division of Hamdard Group and both the plaintiffs have collectively referred themselves as 'HAMDARD' and have filed the present suit through their authorized representative (AR) Sh. Javed Akhter. It has been stated that plaintiff no.1 is the owner of registered trademark HAMDARD and plaintiff no.2 is a licensee of plaintiff no.1 in respect to the said mark.
3. As per averments made in plaint, the plaintiffs come under the umbrella of Hamdard Group, which is a well renowned, reputed and much acclaimed group tracing its glorious and illustrious history falling back to the year 1906 (over 100 years), CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 2/22 DLCT010084202024 when Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed, a well known Unani practitioner, set up a Unani clinic in the name of HAMDARD DAWAKHANA. It has been averred that with entrepreneurial instinct and missionary zeal of Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed, the HAMDARD DAWAKHANA set up by him had flourished and the said name became synonymous with integrity and high standard of the products and success rendered quality in the field of relatively inexpensive Unani medicines.
4. It has further been averred that after the demise of Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed, his son Hakeem Abdul Hameed, popularly known as 'Hakeem Sahab', took over the administration of Hamdard and under his guidance, the reputation and goodwill of Hamdard further grew in leaps and bounds, both nationally and internationally. It has also been averred that 'Hakeem Sahab' brought the dynamism of a new age to the philosophy and operations of Hamdard and setting up of the foundation for research and development subjecting various drugs to laboratory tests brought the Unani system of medicine on modern and scientific lines for the first time.
5. It is the case of plaintiffs that as a Hamdard Group associate, plaintiff no.1 holds proprietary rights to the mark HAMDARD in relation to entire range of the goods and services offered or rendered by the said group as a result of which, the mark HAMDARD has come to be recognized as a House Mark CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 3/22 DLCT010084202024 of the said group. It is also averred that over the years, Hamdard Group has set up and runs the Jamia Hamdard University, the Institute of History of Medicine and Medical Research, the Indian Institute of Islamic Studies and the Hamdard Tibbi College and the Hamdard College of Pharmacy etc. and in the year, 1989, the Jamia Hamdard was even given the status of a Deemed University by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India (GoI).
6. It is further the case of plaintiffs that they are also running the Hamdard Institute of Medical Sciences & Research (HIMSR) at Hamdard Nagar, New Delhi, which is an ambitious project of Hamdard and under the aegis of HIMSR, the plaintiffs also run a hospital namely HAHC Hospital, which is a 740 bedded, modern, state-of-the-art teaching hospital, and it is attached to the Medical College and the Medical College as well as its teaching hospital was granted all requisite permissions by the MCI, GoI as well as the Delhi Government and the first LOP for intake of 100 MBBS students was granted to the said college in June, 2012. It has also been averred by plaintiffs that along with the development of Unani Medicines and therapeutics, the concepts of service, charity and social responsibility have also been the prime motivations of Hamdard Group and have spurred the organization to even higher levels of diversification and growth.
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 4/22DLCT010084202024
7. It is further the case of plaintiffs that their well known mark HAMDARD being used since 1906 and emanating from them is a brand name having within its umbrella the protection of a number of medicinal, pharmaceutical products, syrups (including sherbets), NGOs, educational institutions/services, health services, study centres, etc. and with over 600 OTC and ethical products, including several household brands, they have grown into an institution devoted to providing of health to all through the promotion and development of Unani system of medicine. It is also their case that the Trademarks Registry had issued a list of 'well known' trademarks of the country and had acknowledged the plaintiffs' trademark HAMDARD as a well known trademark within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 by inclusion thereof in the said list.
8. It has also been submitted by plaintiffs that apart from the goodwill accrued by virtue of such long, standing and continuous use, they have also obtained several registrations for the trademark HAMDARD and the details of such registrations obtained in the above trademark HAMDARD for different Classes of goods, in one or the other manner, have been given and the marks have been depicted in a table contained in para 13 of the plaint, which is being reproduced herein below:-
TM NO. TRADEMARK CLASS APP DATE STATUS
4232344 JAMIA HAMDARD 41 11/07/2019 Registered
FOUNDATION
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 5/22
DLCT010084202024
3309443 HAMDARD WELLNESS 44 14/07/2016 Registered
2996 HAMDARD 5 03/08/1942 Registered.
15448 HAMDARD 5 06/05/1943 Registered.
15456 HAMDARD-I-HAJIAN 5 06/05/1943 Registered.
15473 HAMDARD HARHAM 5 06/05/1943 Registered.
127443 HAMDARD 5 23/01/1947 Registered.
171668 HAMDARD 5 12/11/1955 Registered.
188105 HAMDARD 5 16/12/1958 Registered.
1677499 HAMDARD JAM-E- 5 17/04/2008 Registered.
SHIRIN
1950617 HAMDARD-I-HAJIAN 5 15/04/2010 Registered.
2532293 HAMDARD SAFI 5 16/05/2013 Registered.
2827876 HAMDARD 5 16/10/2014 Registered.
MEMOPRASH
4509893 HAMDARD AFREEN 5 26/05/2020 Registered.
4519457 HAMDARD 5 04/06/2020 Registered.
3309443 HAMDARD 44 14/07/2016 Registered.
WELLNESS
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 6/22
DLCT010084202024
4995080 JAMIA HAMDARD 42 05/06/2021 Registered.
5669095 10 03/11/2022 Registered
5669103 10 03/11/2022 Registered
5669107 44 03/11/2022 Registered
5669093 03 03/11/2022 Registered
5669097 41 03/11/2022 Registered
5669098 42 03/11/2022 Registered
2532293 5 16.05.2013 Registered
5416333 HAMDARD SAFI 5 20.04.2022 Registered
9. It has further been averred by plaintiffs that the above trademark registrations are valid, subsisting and in full legal force and these confer upon them, the rights to use the said marks to the exclusion of all others. It has also been averred by them that apart from various trademarks got registered and owned by them, they also operate a number of websites containing their registered and well-known trademark HAMDARD as a part of the name of such websites, which serves not only as an address to the plaintiffs but also serves as business identifier and promoter.
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 7/22DLCT010084202024 The names of such websites or domain names of plaintiffs as mentioned in para 14 of their plaint are as under:-
http://www.hamdardnationalfoundation.org https://www.hamdardfoundation.in http://jamiahamdard.edu/Default.aspx https://www.himsr.co.in/ http://www.hnfindia.com/
10. It is also the specific case of plaintiffs that their above websites/domain names are being used for their above business and other social activities and they are cautious of the hard earned brand value and enormous goodwill connected with their well known trademark HAMDARD and they have even spend huge amounts of money on publicity and advertisements of the said mark with a view to make their customers, existing as well as prospective, aware about excellence of the same.
11. It is further the case of plaintiffs that the defendant Hamdard IMF Private Limited is classified as a non government company and it has got itself registered with the Registrar of Companies in the above name. It is being averred by plaintiffs that the defendant company has also adopted and incorporated the above mark HAMDARD owned by and belonging to them in and as a part of its name as Hamdard IMF Private Limited and adoption of the above mark of HAMDARD by defendant company as a part of its name clearly points out towards the fact that defendant company is trying to make or show its relation/ CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 8/22 DLCT010084202024 connection/association with the plaintiffs, so as to override on the goodwill and reputation of plaintiffs' mark HAMDARD. It has further been averred that the general public is likely to believe that the defendant company belongs to or has an association with the plaintiffs and the above adoption of the trademark HAMDARD belonging to plaintiffs by the defendant company in and as a part of its name is without any permission or authorization from the plaintiffs and it is a dishonest adoption. Further, it has also been averred by plaintiffs that user of their above mark HAMDARD by defendant company infringes not only their rights in common law, but also their statutory rights in respect to the said trade mark and as conferred under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and thus, the same amounts to infringement of their above trade mark as per Section 29 of the said Act and it also amounts to passing off under Section 27 of the said Act.
12. It has been observed on perusal of record that along with the plaint of this suit, the plaintiffs have also filed some miscellaneous applications, including an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order to restrain the defendant company from infringing their above trade mark in name of HAMDARD. The above request of plaintiffs was allowed vide order dated 01.06.2024 and an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order was passed in their favour and restraining the defendant company and CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 9/22 DLCT010084202024 its directors, agents, servants etc. from using the said mark HAMDARD or/and any other mark deceptively similar to the above said mark belonging to plaintiffs, in any manner and for any goods and services being manufactured or rendered by it, so as not to cause any confusion or deception leading to infringement of rights of plaintiffs and passing off the impugned goods as that belonging to the plaintiffs. Further, through the said order, the defendant was also restrained from using the impugned domain names and e-mail IDs etc., which were identical or deceptively similar to the domain names or e-mail IDs etc. being used by the plaintiffs and containing the above trademark/name HAMDARD of the plaintiffs as a part thereof.
13. It is also necessary to mention here that since an urgent relief in the form of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was also claimed by plaintiffs in the present suit, they have even filed an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking exemption from Pre-Institution Mediation and the said application was allowed by this court vide order dated 30.05.2024.
14. The summons of suit are found to have been issued to defendant company through various prescribed modes and it has been observed on perusal of case record that summons sent to it CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 10/22 DLCT010084202024 through ordinary process were not received back, the speed post process was received back undelivered with report that the given address of defendant was insufficient and even the tracking report thereof filed on behalf of plaintiffs has shown that process was received back undelivered. However, the defendant company was reported to have been duly served with summons through e- mail at its given e-mail address on 25.06.2024 for date 25.07.2024. On 25.07.2024, none had appeared on behalf of defendant company before this court and hence, the court had adjourned the matter to 29.08.2024 awaiting filing of written statement as well as its reply to the above application of plaintiff filed under Orders 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, if any. On this date, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by plaintiffs was also allowed by the court and some correction of a clerical/ typical mistake appearing in memo of parties was permitted to be corrected and the amended memo of parties filed by plaintiffs with the said application was taken on record.
15. Since neither any appearance nor any written statement was filed on behalf of defendant company in the present suit within the stipulated period of 30 days, its right to file the written statement was forfeited and it was also proceeded ex-parte by the court vide order dated 29.08.2024. However, the maximum period of 120 days as permitted by law for filing of the written statement by defendant company was not yet over by that time, CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 11/22 DLCT010084202024 but it is observed on perusal of record that the defendant failed to file its written statement even subsequently and within the said period and thus, its right to file written statement stood forfeited by operation of law on expiry of the above maximum period.
16. It is also necessary to mention here that the above ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 01.06.2024 passed by this court was also confirmed by this court on 29.08.2024 and it was made operative till disposal of the present suit.
17. In support of its case, the plaintiffs have examined their authorized signatory/constituted attorney/AR Sh. Javed Akhter as PW1 and as their sole witness and he tendered on record his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He is also found to have tendered and relied upon the following documents through the said affidavit:-
1. Authorization/Power of Attorney in his favour and given by plaintiff no. 1 as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR).
2. Authorization/Power of Attorney in his favour and given by plaintiff no. 2 as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR).
3. Computerized copy of Status report of Trademark under registration no. 127443 as Ex. PW1/4.
4. Computerized copy of Status report of Trademark under registration no. 15448 as Ex. PW1/5.
5. Computerized copy of Status report of Trademark under registration no. 188105 as Ex. PW1/6.CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 12/22
DLCT010084202024
6. Affidavit under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/7 with respect to authenticity of documents Ex.PW1/4 to Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/17 & Ex.PW1/19.
7. The sale figures certified by CA as Ex. PW1/8 (OSR).
8. Copies of invoices proving use of the mark Hamdard marked as Mark PW1/9 (Colly).
9. The list of well-known trademarks showing the plaintiff's trademark Hamdard to be a well known trademark published on the website of trademark registry as Ex. PW1/10.
10. Printout of plaintiff's website hamdardfoundation.in as Ex. PW1/11.
11. Printout of plaintiff's website hnfindia.com as Ex. PW1/12.
12. Printout of plaintiff's website hamdard.in as Ex. PW1/13.
13. Printout of plaintiff's website himsr.co.in as Ex. PW1/14.
14. Printout of plaintiff's website jamiahamdard.edu as Ex. PW1/15.
15. Printout of scholarship advertisement announced on the website hnfindia.com as Ex.PW1/16.
16. Printout of domain name details of plaintiff's website obtained from whois.com as Ex.PW1/17.
17. Copy of cease-and-desist notice dated 08.02.2024 from the plaintiff to the defendants as Mark PW1/18.
18. Printout of defendant's details obtained from the website of MCA as Ex. PW1/19.
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 13/22DLCT010084202024
19. Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) of the Trademark under registration no. 2996 as Ex. PW1/20.
20. LPC of the Trademark under registration no. 127443 as Ex. PW1/21.
21. LPC of the Trademark under registration no. 15448 as Ex. PW1/22.
22. LPC of the Trademark under registration no. 188105 as Ex. PW1/23.
It is necessary to mention here that though a computerized copy of the Status report of one other Trademark under registration no. 2996 was also mentioned and referred to in the evidence affidavit of witness as Ex. PW1/3, but the same was not found on record of the case and even not produced by the witness at the time of his examination.
18. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Shivendra Pratap Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs, along with Ms. Mehak Khanna, Advocate and I have also perused the case record, including the brief written note of submissions filed on behalf of plaintiffs.
19. It has been observed that in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A, Sh. Javed Akhter has almost deposed on lines of the plaint of this case and has supported the claim of plaintiffs as set out therein. Since the defendant company has not come forward CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 14/22 DLCT010084202024 to challenge or contest the claim of plaintiffs on merits and it has not even cared to file any written statement to the plaint or to cross examine PW1, all depositions made by PW1 through the said affidavit have gone unchallenged, uncontroverted and unrebutted. In terms of the authorizations or power of attorneys Ex.PW1/1 & Ex.PW1/2 executed by plaintiffs no. 1 & 2 respectively in favour of this witness, he is found to be a competent witness not only to file or institute the present suit, but also to appear and depose before this court.
20. On merits also, the oral testimony of PW1, as contained in said affidavit, is found duly corroborated and substantiated from the contents of documents which have been brought in evidence through the testimony of this witness. As already discussed, the plaintiffs are part of a well known, reputed and much acclaimed HAMDARD group, which comprises of various laboratories, educational institutes and hospitals etc. and the above trademark in name of HAMDARD is claimed to have been adopted and being used continuously by plaintiffs for more than 100 years and since the year 1906, when the founder of Hamdard National Foundation India, namely Hakeem Hafiz Abdul Majeed, had set up a Unani clinic under the name of HAMDARD DAWAKHANA.
21. The oral and documentary evidence led on record by plaintiffs also duly establishes that since then, the HAMDARD CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 15/22 DLCT010084202024 Group has flourished with its products and services being provided by it in different fields and the same has become synonymous with integrity and high standards of the products and quality services being rendered by it in the field of Unani medicine. The evidence on record also establishes that as a result of the expenses made on advertisement and publicity of the above mark of plaintiffs, the said mark has been able to find a place in the list of well-known trademarks issued by the Trademark Registry and published on its website, a copy of which has been brought on record during evidence of plaintiffs as Ex.PW1/10.
22. The sales statement Ex.PW1/8 produced by PW1 in evidence of plaintiffs, which is the turnover of only one product manufactured by plaintiffs in name of 'Safi Syrup', shows that turnover of their said product has been consistently increasing over the years and it has increased from Rs. 59,19,46,427.69 in the financial year 2013-14 to Rs. 70,35,29,207.04 during the financial year 2022-23. It can also be seen from the statement of advertisement expenses of plaintiffs on the above said product, which is a part of the documents Ex.PW1/10 (colly), that the plaintiffs have even been spending considerable amounts in promotion of the said product as their advertisement expenses on this product have also increased from Rs. 83,30,403.86 in financial year 2017-18 to Rs. 2,23,97,854.90 during the financial year 2022-23.
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 16/22DLCT010084202024
23. Further, though in para 13 of the plaint, it has been claimed by plaintiffs that they have obtained as many as 25 registrations in different names by using their above trademark HAMDARD as a part of it or in the names of different institutions, establishments or hospitals etc. bring run by it under the HAMDARD Group and further even though most of the online status report and trademark registration certificates in respect to these applications are found to have not been tendered formally or relied upon by plaintiffs in their evidence for the reasons best known to them or their counsels, but it has been observed that the plaintiffs have duly brought in evidence the on-line status reports of three such registration applications bearing No. 127443, 15448 & 188105 as Ex.PW1/4, Ex.PW1/5 & Ex.PW1/6 respectively, the authenticity of which is found established by the certificate Ex.PW1/7 issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, and also the LPCs Ex.PW1/21, Ex.PW1/22 & Ex.PW1/23 filed in respect to the above three registration applications and also one other LPC Ex.PW1/20 relating to one more registration application No. 2996, of which the computerized status report could not been filed earlier. These trademarks of plaintiffs are found to have been registered in respect to their above mark/ word mark in name of HAMDARD, with or without the device/ logo of and all these marks have been got registered by plaintiffs for Class 5 goods or articles. A bare perusal of the CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 17/22 DLCT010084202024 above LPCs shows that registrations of these trademarks were applied by plaintiffs long back in the years 1942, 1943, 1947 & 1958 and in case of registration marks covered by the LPCs Ex.PW1/20 & Ex.PW1/21, the user of the concerned trademark of HAMDARD was claimed since 01.01.1906, in respect to device mark of HAMDARD it was claimed since 15.10.1958 and for the other mark covered by Ex.PW1/22, the mark was shown to be a proposed mark only. Again, all the above registrations obtained by plaintiffs are found to be still valid and continuing.
24. Further, the oral and documentary evidence on record also establishes that the above trademark HAMDARD is even being used by plaintiffs as a part of their websites or domain names as hamdardfoundation.in, hnfindia.com, hamdard.in, himsr.co.in, jamiahamdard.edu and whois.com and they have been advertising and promoting their products and services through these websites/domain names and printouts showing the user of their trademark as a part of the above websites/domain names and in respect to the advertisements of their products thereon have also been brought in evidence by plaintiffs as Ex.PW1/11 to Ex.PW1/15 & Ex.PW1/17, the authenticity of which is also establish from the above certificate Ex.PW1/7 issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
25. Hence, the oral and documentary evidence led on record by plaintiffs is found sufficient to hold that they are owners of the CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 18/22 DLCT010084202024 above trademark/device mark in name of HAMDARD and they have also the exclusive rights to use the said mark of HAMDARD in respect to the products being manufactured or sold by them or the services being provided by them and their above mark is also liable to protection from infringement in terms of provisions contained under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and further since it is also a well known mark as per Section 2(1) (zg) of the above said Act.
26. Now coming to the averments about infringement of the above trademark HAMDARD of plaintiffs by defendant company, the evidence led before this court reflects that PW1 during his statement has also tendered on record a copy of the master data or details obtained from the official website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, as Ex.PW1/19, the authenticity of which is again found established from the above certificate Ex.PW1/7. This document shows that the defendant company has also incorporated and is using the trade name/mark of HAMDARD as a part of its name Hamdard IMF Private Limited and the same is apparently in violation of the common law and statutory rights of plaintiffs to use the above trademark in name of HAMDARD exclusively. Hence, in view of the provisions contained in Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, the defendant company is required to be restrained from infringing the rights of plaintiffs by using the said mark as a part of its name, domain name or website name or even in respect to CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 19/22 DLCT010084202024 any of the goods being manufactured or sold by it or any kind of services provided or rendered by it. It is so because if it is permitted to continue the use of above trademark of plaintiffs as a part of its name or domain name etc., or even in relation to any goods or services being provided by it, then it may result in a deception upon public persons or the general public in associating the said goods or services of defendant with affairs of the plaintiffs as they may draw a connection or association between defendant company and plaintiffs and they may take goods or services being rendered or provided by defendant as that of the plaintiffs.
27. Therefore, the suit of plaintiffs is being allowed and a decree for permanent injunction is directed to be passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant and restraining the defendant company, its directors, agents and servants etc. from using the above mark HAMDARD of plaintiffs as a part to its name or domain/website name etc. or in respect to any goods being manufactured or sold or the services being rendered or provided by it or even in any kind of advertisement published by it in respect to the said goods or services or in any other manner whatsoever, so as not to cause any confusion or deception in the mind of general public and leading them into a belief that the defendant company has any association or relation with plaintiffs and it also does not result in passing off the goods or services of defendant company as that of the plaintiffs.
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 20/22DLCT010084202024
28. Since no evidence has been led on record by plaintiffs with regard to any profits stated to have been earned illegally by the defendant company on account of user of the above said trademark HAMDARD of plaintiffs as a part of its name or in respect of any goods being manufactured or sold or services being provided by it or even about user of said mark in respect to any catalogue, brochure, publicity material or stickers etc., Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs has fairly stated that he is not insisting upon a decree for rendition of accounts of profits by defendant and/or for delivery up etc. of the impugned goods and material.
29. Again, even no case for recovery of any penal or exemplary damages by defendant company has been made out by plaintiffs from the evidence led on record and hence, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence led before the court and keeping in view the date of incorporation of defendant company i.e. 24.08.2023, as given in Ex.PW1/19, with user of the impugned trademark HAMDARD of plaintiffs as a part of its name, the plaintiffs are also being held entitled to a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from defendant company as damages.
30. The plaintiffs are also being awarded costs of the present suit as well as the Pleader Fee as per Rules framed by the Hon'ble High Court. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 21/22DLCT010084202024
31. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Dated: 08.08.2025 (M. K. Nagpal) District Judge, Commercial Court-13 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/08.08.2025 Digitally signed by MK MK NAGPAL NAGPAL Date:
2025.08.08 15:23:35 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 665/2024 22/22