Delhi High Court - Orders
Attested/Notarised Affidavits) ... vs Phoenix Mills Ltd on 30 July, 2020
Author: Mukta Gupta
Bench: Mukta Gupta
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 293/2020
I.A. 6361/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)
I.A. 6362/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) Commercial Courts Act)
I.A. 6363/2020 (exemption from filing clear copies of documents and
attested/notarised affidavits)
I.A. 6364/2020 (extension/exemption for filing court fee)
HERMES INTERNATIONAL & ANR. ..... Plaintiff
Represented by: Ms.Tusha Malhotra, Advocate
versus
PHOENIX MILLS LTD. ..... Defendant
Represented by: Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Advocate with
Mr.Aseem Chaturvedi, Mr.Ajay
Bhargava, Mr.Ankur Sangal and
Ms.Sucheta Roy, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
ORDER
% 30.07.2020 The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing. I.A. 6363/2020 (exemption from filing clear copies, notarised affidavits) I.A. 6364/2020 (exemption from filing court fee)
1. By these two applications, the plaintiffs seek exemption from filing the clear copies of the documents, notarised affidavits in support of the plaint & applications, statement of truth, certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act as also the Court fees.
2. Considering the Covid-19 situation, the plaintiffs are exempted from filing clear copies of the documents & notarised affidavits in support of the CS(COMM) 293/2020 Page 1 of 3 plaint and applications as also the Court fees etc. at this stage and the same be filed within one week of the resumption of the normal Court functioning.
2. Applications are disposed of.
CS(COMM) 293/2020 I.A. 6361/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC) I.A. 6362/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) Commercial Courts Act)
1. Plaint be registered as a suit.
2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the applications to the defendant. Mr.Aseem Chaturvedi, Advocate for the defendant accepts summons in the suit and notice in the applications.
3. At the very outset, Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant submits that due to the inadvertent error, the names of the plaintiffs appeared on the website of the defendant and the moment, the defendant was notified by the Advertising Standards Council of India (in short, 'ASCI') on 10th July, 2020, the defendant pulled out the page which noted that the plaintiffs were also opening a store in the defendant's mall. Learned counsel for the defendant states that in case a cease and desist notice had been issued to the defendant since this was an inadvertent error, the defendant would have immediately taken action. Further, learned counsel for the defendant states that irrespective of his objection on the issue of territorial jurisdiction and that no authority has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff No. 2, the defendant does not wish to contest the suit and is ready to make a statement that the names of the plaintiffs store were inadvertently mentioned and the same already having been taken down from the defendant's website, the defendant would also take immediate steps by writing to the websites of third parties as the said listings are not by the CS(COMM) 293/2020 Page 2 of 3 defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant states that the moment, ASCI issued a notice, the defendant not only took down the plaintiffs' brands but also some other brands such as Bvlgari, Nike, Geox and Prada.
4. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the act of the defendant is not prima facie unintentional because the picture of the plaintiffs' brand has been on the website of the defendant for a long time and it came to the notice of the plaintiffs only recently.
5. At request of the learned counsel for the parties, list on 13th August, 2020.
6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JULY 30, 2020 akb CS(COMM) 293/2020 Page 3 of 3