Gujarat High Court
Gel Krupa Enterprises Through Chirag ... vs Veksor Homeware on 12 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 478 of 2025
================================================================
GEL KRUPA ENTERPRISES THROUGH CHIRAG GIRISHBHAI MALAVIYA
Versus
VEKSOR HOMEWARE
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 12/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present Civil Revision Application is filed challenging the order passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Rajkot in Regular Execution Application No.1 of 2024 whereby, by an order dated 24.06.2025, the Execution Petition filed by the original plaintiff has been allowed and Executing Court has restrained the original defendant in terms of para-52(A) of Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their original status as that in the suit.
3. The brief facts arising in the present Civil Revision Application are that the plaintiff filed Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024 for permanent and perpetual injunction under Section-22 of the Designs Act, 2000 with the following reliefs:-
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleasedto pass an order of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the Defendants, their directors, partners, Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined proprietors, officers, servants, agents, dealers, stockiests, distributors, other business concerns, employees, consultants,licensee, permitted user, partnership firm, proprietary concern, contractors, companies, etc. from manufacturing, in chopperwith design, shape, configuration, mechanism, pattern and/or any other design which may be identical to and/or imitation or piracy of plaintiff's registered design/s and thereby restrain defendans from committing an act of infringement of registered design bearing registration no.358866-001 w.e.f. 19.02.2022 in Class 07 - 04 of the plaintiff and from infringing the registered design of plaintiff stated above or from selling any other product with any different name which may amount to infringement of registered desiggn of the plaintiff vide registration no.358866-001 w.e.f. 19.02.2022 in Class 07
- 04, in the interest of justice;
B. The Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the defendants to furnish the details of true and correct accounts in respect of the productts sold in the market which is the infringing copy/piracy of the registered design of the plaintiff under registration no.358866-001 w.e.f. 19.02.2022 in Class 07 - 04 and after verifying the said account and deriving the amount of profit earned by them, order the defendants to pay the said amount of profit earned to the plaintiffs with 18% interest from the date of the suit, till realization, in the interest of justice;
C. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order to deliver up of all infringing/pirated productts and further to deliver up dyes, mould, injenction mould, machine, or such other materials used for manufacturing Chopper, which are amounting to the infringement of the registered design of the plaintiff vide registration no.358866-001 in Class 07 - 04 as stated in the plaint, and all other such materials that may amont to or causes infringement of the copyright in the registered design of the plaintiffs' registered design under no.358866-001 in Class 07 - 04 including but not limited to choppers, push choppes, bodies, manufacturing household articles and Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined kitchenware and related apparatus used to manufacture the infringing products, for destrucion, in the interest of justice;
D. This Hon'ble Court may be pleasedto pass a decree directing to seal and/or confiscate and/or to destroy the dye and/or injenction mould/mound and any such other machine or apparatus etc., being used by the defendans to manufacture the choppers and push choppers, disputed in the present suit and which is amounting to the piracy and/or imitation of the registered design of plaintiff bearing no.358866-001 in Class 07 - 04, in the interest of justice;
E. Any other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in the interet of justice.
F. A heavy exemplary cost of the suit may be awarded to the plaintiff."
4. The defendant appeared in the said suit and a compromise Pursis was filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the defendant agreed that the plaintiff is the owner of the registered designed product and also gave an undertaking to the Court that the defendant shall not manufacture product which is the registered design of the plaintiff. Moreover, in the said consent terms, the defendant also agreed that after filing the consent terms, the defendant shall not challenge the registered design of the plaintiff having been registered on 19.02.2022 by Registration No.358866-001 in Class 07 - 04. It was agreed that:-
Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
(i) The defendant shall hand over the dye of the said product to the plaintiff and had also agreed that in view of the fact that the plaintiff does not require registration he shall apply to cancel the said registration.
(ii) The plaintiff shall sell his products to the defendant.
(iii) Earlier settlement that was notarized shall be cancelled and no compensation shall be sought by the parties with respect to the said notarized documents.
5. In view of the said consent terms, the 9th Additional District Judge, Rajkot passed an order below Exhibit-9 and recorded the said consent and a judgment and decree of the said consent terms was drawn by the District Court.
6. In view of the fact that the original defendants did not comply with the consent terms, the plaintiff filed application under Order 21 Rule 32(1) for enforcement of the decree and after considering the consent terms and the documents pruduced with the Execution Petition, the Executing Court restrained the defendants in terms of para-52(A) of the Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Application is filed.
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
7. The learned advocate for the defendant has mainly argued that the Executing Court has exercised powers beyond the relief that was passed by virtue of the said consent terms, dated 15.04.2024. It has been argued that the Executing Court could only consider the consent terms and judgment and decree passed by the Court in Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024 and in Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024, the trial Court had not granted any relief as prayed for in para-52(A), and therefore, in view of the fact that there is no decree in terms of para-52(A) of the plaint. The Executing Court could not have restrained the defendant as per the terms mentioned in para-52(A) of the plaint.
8. Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that the relief that has been sought in para-52(A) also restrains the defendant from marketing/selling/advertising/direct or indirectly dealing in chopper with design, shape, configuration, mechanism, pattern of the plaintiff, and therefore, Executing Court could not have granted the said relief in view of the fact that in the consent terms it was specifically agreed that the defendant shall not manufacture the product and design of the plaintiff and there was no injunction that was granted and/or there was no consent given by the defendant with respect to marketing/selling/advertising/direct or indirectly dealing in chopper with design of the plaintiff, and therefore, the order that Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined has been passed by the Executing Court goes beyond the decree, and therefore, the present Revision Application is required to be allowed.
9. Moreover, learned advocate for the defendant has also been argued that consent terms were filed and after the judgment and decree were drawn pursuant to the said consent terms, the defendant filed an application under Order 23 Rule 3 proviso read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the order dated 15.04.2024 passed below Exhibit-90 and also below Exhibit-1 and to recall the decree at Exhibit-10 passed on 01.05.2024 by the 9th Additional District Judge, Rajkot in Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024 and to restore the said suit for disposal in terms of Section - 22(4) of the Design Act, 2000 and being the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot has rejected the said application by an order dated 02.04.2025. The said order is under challenge by the defendant by filing Special Civil Application No.9275 of 2025 wherein notice is issued for final disposal, and therefore, it has been argued that if the said Special Civil Application is allowed then the question of Executing the order passed on 24.06.2025 will have no scope and in that view of the matter, the order passed by the Executing Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
10. Learned advocate for the defendant has argued that the order passed for recalling the consent terms and the judgment and decree are pending by way of Special Civil Application No.9275 of 2025, and therefore, the order of the Executing Court has to be subject to the outcome of the said Special Civil Application and/or any other order passed thereunder.
11. Per contra, learned advocate for the plaintiff has argued that the order that has been passed by the Executing Court is for enforcement of the consent terms and the judgment and decree passed in Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024.
12. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has fairly stated that the consent terms that were filed with respect to restraining the defendant from manufacturing the chopper by applying similar/identical design of the plaintiff and undertaking was also given that the defendant shall hand over the dye product of the defendant with respect to the design of the defendant and the said product chopper. Moreover, in the said consent terms, the defendant had also agreed that in view of the fact that the dye of the said product is already handed over to the plaintiff. The defendant shall apply for cancellation of the said registration and though the trial Court has granted relief in terms of para- 52(A) but the said relief had considered only restraining the Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined defendant from manufacturing chopper with design, shape, configuration, mechanism, pattern and/or any other design which may be identical to and/or imitation or piracy of plaintiff's registered design/s and thereby restraining the defendant from committing an act of infringement of registered design bearing Registration No.358866-001 w.e.f. 19.02.2022 in Class 07 - 04 and the relief that has been granted by Executing Court be modified to that effect.
13. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has also argued that the plaintiff alongwith Execution Petition has produced documentary evidence to prove and support the fact that the defendant is still manufacturing the chopper with design, shape, configuration, mechanism, pattern and/or any other design which may be identical to and/or imitation or piracy of plaintiff's registered design/s that of the plaintiff, and therefore, the application under Order 21 Rule 32 has been filed and the Executing Court had rightly allowed the said application.
14. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and having considered the judgment and decree passed by the District Court in Trade Mark Suit No.3 of 2024, the said judgment and decree has been passed on consent terms that were filed, vide Exhibit-9 in which the defendant had agreed for the following:-
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined
(i) In consent terms, the defendant had agreed that he shall neither manufacture the product in which the plaintiff has registration design No.358866-001 of Class 07 - 04 and the defendant had agreed that the plaintiff is the owner of the said registered design product and that the defendant shall not challenge the said design registraion No. 358866-001 of Class 07 - 04 and shall not file any proceeding challenging the said design and the defendant having already handed over the product dye to the plaintiff and having agreed that they shall also cancel their registration with respect to the design which has been having registration No. 358866-001 of Class 07 - 04 which is owned by the plaintiff.
(ii) The enforcement of the said order, the Execuing Court can direct that the act required to be done by the defendant be done and the said order be complied with, and therefore, the order that has been passed by the trial Court restraining the defendants from manufacturing any product similar to the design of the plaintiff's product having registraion No. 358866-001 of Class 07 - 04, has rightly been passed by the Executing Court. The only exception is that the Executing Court has granted injunction in terms of para-52(A) of the plaint, but the fact is that the consent terms that were passed only restrained the defendant from manufacturing the product and design No. Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CRA/478/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/08/2025 undefined 358866-001 of Class 07 - 04, and therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court is modified to the effect that by permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, agents, dealers, stockiests, distributors, other business concern, employees, consultants, licensee, permitted user, partnership firm, proprietary concern, contractors, companies etc. from manufacturing the product which is the registered design of the plaintiff.
15. In view of the said fact, the order of the Executing Court is modified to the effect that the defendants restraining the defendants, their directors, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, agents, dealers, stockiests, distributors, other business concern, employees, consultants, licensee, permitted user, partnership firm, proprietary concern, contractors, companies etc. from manufacturing the product which is the registered design of the plaintiff. The order of the Executing Court will be subject to the final outcome of Special Civil Application No.9275 of 2025. The present Civil Revision Application is disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J) Manoj Kumar Rai Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by MANOJ KR. RAI(HC01072) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:32:17 IST 2025