Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Sks Ispat And Power Ltd And 2 Ors on 23 November, 2020

Author: S.C. Gupte

Bench: S.C. Gupte

            Digitally signed by
Smita       Smita Gonsalves
Gonsalves   Date: 2020.11.25
            15:51:46 +0530
        sg                                          1/2                  11. comip117-14.doc

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                   COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.117 OF 2014

        Steel Authority of India Ltd.               ...Plaintiff
               vs.
        SKS Ispat And Power Ltd. And 2 Ors.         ...Defendants
                                          .........
        Mr. H.W. Kane, a/w. Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Ms. Vedangi Soman, i/b.
        W.S. Kane & Co., for the Plaintiff.

        Mr. Bomi Patel, a/w. Mrs. Rashna Khan and Ms. Poorva Garg, i/b. Mulla
        & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, for Defendant No.1.

        Ms. Sarika Singh, for Defendant No.2.

        Ms. Vaishali D. Padale, for Defendant No.3.

                                                 .........

                                          CORAM : S.C. GUPTE, J.

DATE: 23 NOVEMBER 2020 P.C.:

. This commercial suit complains of infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks by the Defendants. The Plaintiff has prayed for a perpetual injunction against the Defendants in respect of such infringement and also damages to the tune of over Rs.330 crores. All three Defendants have filed respective written statements and issues have been framed on the basis of these written statements on 25 June 2015. In accordance with further directions issued by this Court, the Plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence of one Mr. Anurag Sharma. The sg 2/2 11. comip117-14.doc affidavit is dated 31 July 2015. The Plaintiff has also filed affidavit of documents together with a compilation and admission or denial of these documents has been disclosed in the respective lists filed by the Defendants separately. So far as the Defendants' documents are concerned, it appears that the inspection of documents sought for by the Plaintiff is not yet complete. Learned Counsel for Defendant No.1 states that inspection could not be completed so far, since some documents were at the factory of Defendant No.1, which is outside the State of Maharashtra. Learned Counsel submits that his client shall give inspection of documents within a period of two weeks from today.

2. The commercial IP suit to come up for case management hearing on 11 December 2020. The parties to strictly follow the timeline so far as inspection of balance documents is concerned and be ready with admission and denial of documents upon such inspection by the next date. As far as Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they have already indicated that they do not intend to file any documents. Accordingly, appropriate directions will be passed and the trial shall commence on the next date.

3. This order will be digitally signed by the Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)