Bangalore District Court
Mr. Ramesh Kothari vs Mr. Dipesh Goel on 13 October, 2022
KABC010148922013
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for PRESENT: SRI PADMA PRASAD
Judgme
B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 13 th day of October 2022
PLAINTIFF: Mr. Ramesh Kothari
S/o Hemraj Kothari,
C/o Modern Collections,
#759, Jongade Market,
1st Floor, Chickpet,
Bangalore-560 058.
Karnataka.
[By Sri H.S.H. Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Mr. Dipesh Goel
'TESSUTI', Unit of Ajay
Goel Textile Pvt Ltd.,
G1, Ground Floor, Howe
India House,
81, Nehru Place,
NEW DELHI-110 019.
[By Sri MVC/SBM, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 5/6/2015
suit
2 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
Nature of the suit : For INJUNCTION.
Date of commencement of : 4/4/2014
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 13/10/2022
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
7 4 8
(PADMA PRASAD)
XVIII ACCJ: B'LURU.
This is a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The plaintiff's case in nutshell is that,
plaintiff is a well established and leading
businessman in the field of Textiles and Fabrics that
includes tissues (textile piece goods) and ready-mades
and doing the business under the name and style
'TESSUTI' with logo. The plaintiff claims that the
plaintiff has the trademark 'TESSUTI' with logo in its
characteristic style has been honestly adopted and
used since January 1992, and obtained the trademark
registration certificate under trademark no. 1131883,
certificate no.624968 dated 26/3/2007 under class
24 and trademark no. 1214380, certificate no. 427943
3 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
dated 22/9/2005 under class 25. The plaintiff further
claims that on the said trademark TESSUTI', the
plaintiff has obtained NOC certificate under Section
45 of the copyright Act on 12/12/2006 in
C.C.No.2201/2004-05 and also got registered the logo
TESSUTI' as artistic works vide a copyright
registration No.A-79948/2007 dated 29/6/2007. The
plaintiff using the said trademark logo and artistic
work continuously, extensively and exclusively
without any interruptions, and thereby acquired
considerable goodwill and reputation among the
public as well as other traders. The name TESSUTI' in
the textile and fabric business has thus become
distinctive and is exclusively identified with plaintiff
and also acquired secondary meaning co-related with
plaintiff's business and as such the word TESSUTI' is
a synonymous with plaintiff. The plaintiff has
published attractive brouchers, news magazines, news
letters etc., highlighting their activities those are
circulated all over India and the plaintiff has
customers across India, and thereby the plaintiff has
4 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation on his
trademark. The plaintiff also stated about his turn
over since 2003-04 to 2012-13. The case made out by
the plaintiff that the defendant is doing a textile
business in the name of TESSUTI' and thereby
infringed the plaintiff's well known trademark. The
plaintiff claims that deceptively using the plaintiff's
trademark by the defendant will create confusion in
the minds of customers and mistakenly go to the
defendant shop, and that may cause loss to the
plaintiff and also reputation of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff further claimed that the plaintiff is
conducting his fabric business in the name and style
of Adinatha Worldwide India which is the
proprietorship concern, the plaintiff has issued
license to Sripalkumar Kothari, brother of plaintiff
and TESSUTI GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED
represented by its Director Jitendra Hemaraj Kothari
who is another brother of plaintiff to use the aforesaid
mark TESSUTI' in respect of class 24 and 25 of the
trademark Act. The plaintiff also claims that the
5 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
plaintiff maintains a corporate office named 'TESSUTI
INDIA' at J.P. Nagara, Bengaluru. The plaintiff has
appointed distributors all over India for the purpose of
marketing of plaintiff's fabrics. Accordingly claimed
that the plaintiff has become one of the established
and recognizable names in the field of textile and
fabric business all over India including Delhi. The
plaintiff using the trademark TESSUTI' since last two
decades, as such the trading style or trademark
adopted by the defendant in the name and style of
TESSUTI' will infringe the plaintiff's trademark. The
plaintiff also claimed that the defendant lavishly and
fraudulently copied the plaintiff's trademark to his
business. The defendant even after the causing of
notice dated 6/7/2012 not stopped the using of
plaintiff's trademark TESSUTI', and hence filed this
suit.
3. The defendant in its written statement
denied the plaint case and claiming that the
defendant adopted the trademark TESSUTI' in the
year 2010 for goods of range of textile and textile
6 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
goods, embroidery, embroidered goods, frills, lace, lace
works, crochets,ribbons, bride hooks, buttons, press
buttons, buckles, dress holders, coat hangers, tie
holders, hooks and eyes, pins, needles since the year
2010 under the trademark TESSUTI', and also
obtained registration of trademark TESSUTI' in class
35 bearing no. 2167679 and trademark in class 26
bearing no. 2167680. The defendant being the
registered trademark holder of the trademark, he is
protected under Section 28(3) of the Act. The plaintiff
never filed any opposition against the said application.
Hence, the plaintiff is estopped from contending
otherwise. There is no cause of action for the suit, and
also denied entire plaint averments, and accordingly
prayed for dismissal of suit.
4. On the basis of above pleading the court
framed following issues and additional issues:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant has infringed his trademark
'TESSUTI'?
(2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs as sought for?
7 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
(3) To what decree or order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 17/7/2019:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that their
trade mark 'TESSUTI' is registered
trade mark?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that his
brother Mr. Jithendra Kothari had
license to use plaintiff's trade mark?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
prior user of the mark 'TESSUTI'?
(4) Whether the defendant proves that
their trade mark 'TESSUTI' is also
registered as contended?
5. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, examined
himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as per
Ex.P1 to Ex.P76. On the other hand, the Director of
defendant company is examined as DW.1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D46.
6. Heard the arguments and perused entire
records of the case. The learned counsel for the
plaintiff as well as defendant has filed written
arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has
filed the following citations in support of his case.
8 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
1. List of classification of goods and
services as per Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Suit No.2311/85 M/s Nanak Builders
and Invesors Pvt. Ltd., Sh Vinod Kumar Alag.
3. Prakash Roadline Ltd., Vs. Prakash
Parcel Service (P) Ltd., on 1st Mrch, 1992.
7. The learned counsel for the defendant has
filed following citations in support of his case.
1. Datamatics Global Services Limited
Vs. Royal Datamatic Pvt. Ltd., 2016(6) Mh L.J.
249.
2. J.R.Kapoor Vs. Micronix India, 1994
Supp (3) SCC 215.
3. Indechemic Health Specialties Pvt.
Ltd., Vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Anr.,
2015 (6) Mh.L.J. 324.
4. Orange City Mobile Collection Vs. City
Collection, 2021 SCC Online Bom 3567.
5. Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas
Kishendas Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.,
Hyderabad and Another, (1997) 5 SCC 201.
9 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
8. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 2) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 3) ............As per final order for
the following:
Addl. Issue No.1)............. In the affirmative;
Addl. Issue No.2)............. In the affirmative;
Addl. Issue No.3)............. In the affirmative;
Addl. Issue No.4)............. In the affirmative;
9. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1 TO 4:
Additional Issue No.1 is framed on the contention of
plaintiff that it is a registered trademark holder of
'TESSUTI', the Additional Issue no.2 is framed on the
contention of plaintiff that the plaintiff's brother
Jitendra Kothari had license to use the plaintiff's said
trademark 'TESSUTI' that has been disputed by the
defendant. The additional issue no.3 is framed on the
contention of the plaintiff that it is the prior user of
the trademark 'TESSUTI'. The additional issue no.4 is
framed on the claim of defendant that it had the
10 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
registered trademark 'TESSUTI'. Therefore, all these
issues are interlinked with each other. Hence, they
have taken up together in order to avoid repetitions
and have a brevity.
10. Before proceeding further in this case, it is
just and convenient to note the claim of respective
parties as well as admitted undisputed facts in this
case.
11. The specific claim of the plaintiff in the suit
is that, the plaintiff is a leading business man in the
field of textiles and fabrics that includes tissues
(textile piece goods) and ready-mades, and he is doing
the said business under the name and style of
'TESSUTI' with logo since 1992. The plaintiff further
claimed that he has obtained registered trademark
'TESSUTI' with logo under class 24 under a
trademark no.1131883 and trademark 'TESSUTI'
with logo under class 25 under a trademark
no.1214380 and also obtained the NOC certificate
under Section 45 of the Copyright Act bearing
11 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
C.C.No.2201/2004-05 dated 12/12/2006 and also
claimed that the said trademark 'TESSUTI' with logo
as artistic work vide a Copyright registration
no.A79948/2007. The further claim of the plaintiff is
that, he has permitted his brother Mrs. Sripal Kothari
to deal in fabrics in the year 2002 under the trading
style 'TESSUTI INTERNATIONAL INDIA' and
authorised his another brother Mr. Jithendra Kothari
to use the trade name 'TESSUTI' who is trading under
the name and style of 'TESSUTI GARMENTS PRIVATE
LIMITED'. The claim of the plaintiff that the
defendant has infringed the aforesaid plaintiff's
trademark and artistic work. Accordingly filed this
suit.
12. The definite defence of the defendant is
that, he has obtained the trademark registration
'TESSUTI' under class 26 and 35 in the year 2013
with effect from 29/6/2011 and he is using the same
for his shop at New Delhi and also earned reputation
in the said business. The defendant further claimed
that, the plaintiff has obtained the trademark only
12 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
under label, not word. The defendant further claimed
that the business of plaintiff and defendant are totally
different and the trademark of plaintiff and defendant
are in different classes. As such, the plaintiff cannot
restrain the defendant from using the said word
'TESSUTI' for his business. Of course, the defendant
has obtained the registration of trade mark 'TESSUTI'
after filing of this suit by the plaintiff but as on today,
the defendant has the registered trade marks
'TESSUTI' in his name under class 26 & 35 vide trade
mark no. 2167680 and 7167679 respectively.
13. Now, it is just and necessary to note the
undisputed and admitted facts in this case.
14. The plaintiff obtained the trademark
'TESSUTI' in class 24 and 25 under a trademark
no.1131883 and 1214380 as well as Copyright
registration no.A79948/2007 is admitted by the
defendant and that has not been disputed by the
defendant. Similarly the defendant has also obtained
the registered trademark 'TESSUTI' under class 26
13 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
and 35 is also admitted as well as proved fact in this
case. Therefore, in the case on hand, both the plaintiff
and defendant are trading under the registered trade
name 'TESSUTI'. Therefore, in the case on hand, the
dispute is between the two registered trademark
holder of 'TESSUTI' , and with these background, the
oral and documentary evidence placed before the
court has to be appreciated.
15. The plaintiff in order to prove that plaintiff
is the registered trademark holder of 'TESSUTI' has
produced original registered trademark certificate at
Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Copyright certificate at Ex.P3, legal use
certificate at Ex.P71 to Ex.P76 along with other bills,
as well as oral evidence. Similarly the defendant in
order to prove that he is the registered trademark
holder of word 'TESSUTI' has produced documents at
Ex.D5 and Ex.D6. All these documents sufficiently
shows that the plaintiff is the registered trademark
holder of 'TESSUTI' in class 24 and 25 and the
defendant is the registered trademark holder of
'TESSUTI' in class 26 and 35. Therefore, it has to be
14 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
accepted that the plaintiff has proved the additional
Issue No.1 and the defendant has proved the
additional issue no.4.
16. In the case on hand, the plaintiff claims
that he is the prior user of the word 'TESSUTI' . The
plaintiff claims that he has used the trade name
'TESSUTI' for his business since 1992. As per Ex.P1,
the plaintiff has obtained the trademark in class 24 as
on 9/9/2002 and obtained trademark certificate
under class 25 as on 15/7/2003 as well as Copyright
certificate is dated 29/6/2007. Per contra, the
defendant in the written statement itself claimed that
he has obtained the registration of trademark in class
no.26 and 35 with effect from 29/6/2011. In view of
the aforesaid unambiguous admission by the
defendant, it is clear that the plaintiff is the prior user
of the word 'TESSUTI' for the business.
17. The plaintiff in the plaint claimed that he
has obtained the trademark 'TESSUTI' for his
business of textiles and fabrics and subsequently he
15 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
authorised his two brothers namely Sripal Kothari
and Jitendra Kothari to use the trade name 'TESSUTI'
for their respective business carried in the name of
'TESSUTI INTERNATIONAL INDIA' and 'TESSUTI
GARMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED.' The additional issue
no.3 is in respect of plaintiff authorising Mr. Jitendra
Kothari to use the plaintiff's trademark. The plaintiff
has not produced any document to show that the
plaintiff has assigned the trademark to his brother
Jitendra Kothari for use of trademark. The claim of
the plaintiff that he and his brothers are doing the
textile business and it is their family business, as
such he has authorised his brothers to use the word
'TESSUTI' for their business. PW.1 / plaintiff during
the cross-examination also stated that there is a
written understanding for usage of the trademark and
logo by his brothers, but the plaintiff has not
produced any document to show that there is such
written understanding between the plaintiff and his
brothers. However, Section 53 of the Trademarks Act
gives indication that the registered owner of the
16 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
trademark can permit the use of trademark by others,
but such permissive user cannot claim any right over
the trademark of the registered owner. Under these
circumstances, it has to be accepted that Mr. Jitendra
Kothari had license to use the plaintiff's trademark.
18. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid
discussion, this court is of the humble opinion that
the plaintiff and defendant are the registered owner of
the trademark 'TESSUTI' in the respective class
claimed by them, the plaintiff is the prior user of the
trademark 'TESSUTI' and the plaintiff has permitted
his brother Jitendra Kothari to use the trademark
'TESSUTI'. Accordingly, all these Additional Issue No.1
to 4 are answered in affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.1: This issue is framed on the
claim of plaintiff that the defendant has infringed the
plaintiff's registered trademark 'TESSUTI'. In view of
the specific finding on additional issue no.1 and 4, it
is clear that both the plaintiff and defendant are the
registered trademark holder of 'TESSUTI'. Of course,
17 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
the plaintiff is having a registered trademark of
'TESSUTI' in class 24 and 25 and the defendant is
having registered trademark of 'TESSUTI' in class 26
and 35. Of course, the defendant has obtained the
trade mark 'TESSUTI' in class 26 and 35 subsequent
to the filing of suit as on 28/11/2013 with effect from
29/6/2011. As per section 23 of the trade marks Act,
the registrations of trade mark is with effect from the
date of application. Hence it is clear that the
defendant has filed application for registration of trade
mark prior to the filing of suit by the plaintiff. It is
true that, the plaintiff is doing the textile business.
The defendant is also doing business relating to textile
and connecting business to textiles as claimed in
written statement. In the case on hand, both the
plaintiff and defendant being a registered trademark
owners have certain right guaranteed under the
provisions of Trade Marks Act particularly Section
28(3) and Section 30(2) (e) of the Trade Marks Act.
Section 28 speaks about the rights conferred by
registration. Section 28 (3) reads as follows:
18 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
"Where two or more persons are registered
proprietors of trademarks, which are identical
with or nearly resemble each other, the exclusive
right to the use of any of those trade marks
shall not (except so far as their respective rights
are subject to any conditions or limitations
entered on the register) be deemed to have been
acquired by any one of those persons as against
any other of those persons merely by registration
of the trade marks but each of those persons has
otherwise the same rights as against other
persons (not being registered users using by way
of permitted use) as he would have if he were the
sole registered proprietor."
20. The said provision to be read along with
Section 30 (2) (e) of the Trade Marks Act. Section 30
speaks about the limits on effect of registered trade
mark and Section 30 (2) speaks about the instances of
non-infringing of the registered trade mark and
Section 30(2) (e) reads as - 'The use of a registered
trade mark, being one of two or more trade marks
registered under this Act which are identical or nearly
resemble each other, in exercise of the right to use of
that trade mark given by registration under this Act.
19 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
Therefore, the registered trade mark owner of a trade
mark is not infringing the trade mark of other
registered owner of the trade mark. Admittedly as per
Ex.D4 and Ex.D5, the Trade Mark Registration
Authority has issued registration of trade mark
certificate as on 28/11/2013 to the defendant and
said trade mark certificate is with effect from
29/6/2011 under class 26 and 35.
21. It is relevant to note that, the plaintiff has
challenged the registration of the trade mark of
defendant before the Intellectual Property Appellate
Board at Delhi in application no. ORA/219/2015/
TM/ DEL & ORA/220/2015/TM / DEL. The plaintiff
has produced the copy of the order in the said case
dated 31/7/2018 at Ex.P70. The said order reveals
that some interim orders has been passed by
Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and it appears
that the said appellate board has rejected the
objections raised by the defendant in the said case
probably to stay the said proceedings. It is relevant to
20 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
note the paragraph 13 to 15 of the said order, that
reads as under:
"13. The registration in the meanwhile
obtained by the respondent no.2 in class 35 and
26 having no bearing as no action for
infringement is filed by the respondent no.2 nor
any plea is raised. The respondent no.2 could
rely upon the registrations as defence. Had the
respondent no.2 obtained registration in clause
24, 25, then position would have been different.
Thus, under these circumstances, it might be
necessary, if said marks are challenged in suit
then the applicant.
14. Thus, we are of the considered view
that the said registrations obtained by the
respondent no.2 at the best could be relied upon
as one of the defence. The objection raised by the
respondent no.2 is accordingly overruled. The
respondent no.2 has raised false and frivolous
objections who did not allow the applicant
counsel to argue the matter on merit.
15. List the present petitions for final
hearing on 20th July 2018."
22. The aforesaid order reveals that the
registration of trade mark obtained by the defendant
21 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
in class 35 and 26 can be used as a defence in this
suit, and the paragraph 12 of the said order shows
that no permission is required for an action of passing
off under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act is not
required. Hence, the order produced by the plaintiff at
Ex.P70 is regarding the seeking of permission to
present rectification under Section 124 of the Trade
Marks Act. Further, the paragraph 15 of the order at
Ex.P70 makes it clear that the application filed by the
plaintiff either for rectification or for the cancellation
of defendants trade mark has not been allowed nor
the trade mark of the defendant has been cancelled
till this date. The plaintiff has not produced any
material before the court to show that the aforesaid
application before the Intellectual Property Appellate
Board has been finally disposed off. If at all the said
application is allowed, then certainly the suit of the
plaintiff to be decreed. The material on record shows
that the aforesaid proceedings before the Intellectual
Property Appellate Board has been stayed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
22 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
23. Once the trade mark has been registered,
then that can be cancelled by filing necessary
application as per Section 47 and 57 of the Trade
Marks Act. Admittedly the plaintiff has filed the
application under Section 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade
Marks Act 1999 against the defendant who is holding
the registered trade mark no.2167680 in class 26 and
2167679 in class 35 in the aforesaid
ORA/219/2015/TM/DEL ORA /220/2015/TM/DEL.
The said case is not disposed off. There is no material
before the court to show that the registered trade
mark o defendant has been either cancelled or
removed from the register of the Trade Mark
Registrtion Authority as contemplated under Sections
47 and 57 of Trade Marks Act. Hence, as on this day,
the defendant is the registered trade mark holder of
word 'TESSUTI'. When the defendant is the registered
trade mark holder of 'TESSUTI', certainly it cannot be
said that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's
trade mark as contemplated under Section 28(3) and
23 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
30(2) (e) of the Trade Marks Act. Accordingly, this
issue is answered in the negative.
24. ISSUE NO.2: As the plaintiff failed to
prove the infringement of his trade mark by the
defendant and as the defendant as on this date is the
registered trade mark holder of 'TESSUTI', certainly
the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in
suit. Accordingly, this Issue is answered in negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3: In view of my finding on the
above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed.
Considering the peculiar
circumstances of the case, no order
as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 13 th day of October 2022.] [PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
24 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Ramesh Kothari
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 Kunal Goel
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 Original registered trade mark certificate.
Ex.P2 Original registered trade mark certificate.
Ex.P3 Original copyright certificate.
Ex.P4 Bill issued by defendant.
Ex.P5 Copy of legal notice.
Ex.P6 Original cash bill issued by the defendant.
Ex.P7 Material sold by the defendant their trademark name.
Ex.P8 Copy of VAT registration certificate.
Ex.P9 Photograph of the hoarding site.
Ex.P10 Bill issued by the advertising agency. 25 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc Ex.P11 Bill issued by the advertising agency.
Ex.P12 to Photographs.
Ex.P22 Ex.P23 CD of Ex.P12 to Ex.P22.
Ex.P24 List of territorial dealers of brand 'TESSUTI'.
Ex.P25 to Bills showing advertisement expenses.
Ex.P49
Ex.P50
to Copy of bills
Ex.P65
Ex.P66 Copy of Sales Tax Certificate dated 25/11/2000.
Ex.P67 Copy of Form VAT -7 dated 26/3/2009.
Ex.P68 Invoices fro 7/4/2009 to 10/11/2014.
Ex.P69 Copy of Invoices from 5/5/2005 to 22/5/2012.
Ex.P70 Computer downloaded copy of order dated 31/7/2018 (produced along with 65 (B) certificate).
Ex.P71 to 6 Legal use certificates. Ex.P76 26 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Extracts of trademark search to results from the website of trade Ex.D3 mark.
Ex.D4 Board resolution dated 16/11/2021.
Ex.D5 Notarized copies of trade mark to certificates (2 in numbers) Ex.D8 Ex.D9 Notarised copy of the PAN Card of defendant's company.
Ex.D10 Computer generated print out of
and GST registration forms (2 in
Ex.D11 numbers).
Ex.D12 Computer generated print out of
Balance Sheet of the company.
Ex.D13 Computer generated print out of
to trade mark search reports (4 in
Ex.D16 numbers).
Ex.D17 Computer generated print out of
international registration for the mark 'TESSUTI'.
Ex.D18 Computer generated printouts of copies of international brands.
Ex.D19 Computer generated print out of website of defendant company.
Ex.D20 Computer generated invoices (25
to in numbers.)
Ex.D44
27 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc
Ex.D45 Computer generated printout of and GST returns (2 in numbers). Ex.D46 [PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
...Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Draw decree accordingly.
[PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
2 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc 9 3 O.S._4004_2013_Judgment_.doc 0