Delhi District Court
Smt. Manju Pathak vs M/S Shree Agro Foods on 16 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI
CIVIL SUIT NO.1081/2018
CNR NO.DLND01-013570-2018
IN THE MATTER OF :-
SMT. MANJU PATHAK
R/O FLAT NO.1847, TOWER-G,
11th AVENUE, GAUR CITY-2, SECTOR-16C,
GREATER NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH-201009
.....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M/S SHREE AGRO FOODS
35A/B, BYRAVESWARANAGAR,
LAGGERE, PEENYA, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA-560058
.....DEFENDANT
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 13.11.2018
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF FINAL ARGUMENT : 13.12.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 16.12.2022
DECISION : PARTLY DECREED
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit under Section 108 of the Patents Act, 1970 wherein plaintiff has sought permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts.
Pleadings
2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the plaint, are;
2.1 It is the case of plaintiff Ms. Manju Pathak that she is a scientist associated with various prestigious educational institutions. Plaintiff CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 1 of 21 claims that during the course of research, she invented a unique process of developing Blood Sugar Regulating Product from Germinated Seeds of Soybean. She filed an application No.663/Del/203 dated 02.05.2003 for obtaining patent in respect of the said process under the invention "Powdered form of Sprouted Soya Seeds" or "Blood Sugar Regulating Product obtained from Glycine max (Soybean Seeds)" (hereinafter referred to as 'the patented product'). The application was allowed and plaintiff was granted patent No.23606 on 06.03.2009 by the Controller of Patents.
2.2 On receiving the patent, plaintiff initially started an unregistered business activity of manufacturing and selling the patented product. Thereafter, in the year 2014, she started selling the product under a registered proprietorship business in the name of M/s DRY SPROUTS. 2.3 It is the plaintiff's case that patent has been granted to her in respect of four claims for Blood Sugar Regulating Products. The claims of the said patent are as under:
1. The Blood Sugar Regulating Product obtained from Glycine Max (soybean) seeds by the following steps:
1) Developing the embryo of the seeds (germination) from one to thirty days,
2) Drying the germinating seeds at 15°C to 150°C,
3) Grinding the germinated and then dried seeds into powder,
4) Optionally if required, grinding the germinating seeds into paste and then drying the paste into powder, CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 2 of 21
5) Optionally if required, an extract can be prepared from the germinating seeds.
2. Product claimed in claim 1, wherein any other ingredient can be mixed to the powder to taste better, to look better, to preserve better, to change the flavor, or to improve the texture.
3. Product claimed in claim 1, wherein the powder can be formulated in various forms like tablets, capsules, or gels.
4. Product claimed in claim 1, wherein the powder like in breads, biscuits, various flours, nutrition bars and drinks. 2.4 Plaintiff claimed that the claims of the granted patent protects a Blood Sugar Regulating Products obtained by grinding sprouted soys seeds and its other specific embodiments. She has claimed that her claim has two main elements, (i) A Blood Sugar Level Regulating Product; and (ii) The said product is obtained by powdering the sprouted soya seeds. 2.5 Plaintiff is the patentee of the granted patent No.231606 and therefore, she has exclusive right to prevent third party from making, using, selling or importing the patented product without her consent for a term of 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application i.e. from 02.05.2003 till 02.05.2023.
2.6 In the month of September 2018, plaintiff came through an e-commerce portal M/s Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. and came to know that defendant M/s Shree Agro Foods is manufacturing a product named NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR (hereinafter referred to as 'the infringed product') at its plant in Bangaluru, Karnataka. Plaintiff has CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 3 of 21 alleged that defendant is claiming that its product contains sprouted soya seeds and it has many health benefits including balancing sugar level. The infringed product is being sold through out India through e- commerce portal.
2.7 Plaintiff has alleged that the infringed product is identical to the patented product as it contains both the elements of her claims i.e. (i) A Blood Sugar Level Regulating Product and (ii) The product is obtained by powdering the sprouted soya seeds.
2.8.On the force of aforesaid submissions, plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking reliefs, (a) A decree for permanent injunction to restrain defendant from manufacturing and selling the infringed product; (b) Rendition of accounts; (c) An order for seizure of infringed product; and
(d) Damages and cost of the suit.
3. Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. 3.1 Defendant admitted that it had been manufacturing and selling the product namely NAVAVAITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOW at its plant. Defendant also admitted that it has disclosed one of the benefit of its product as BALANCING SUGAR LEVEL.
3.2 Defendant raised preliminary objection in the written statement that the claimed invention of the plaintiff falls under the exceptions provided under Section 3(c), 3(j) & 3(p) of the Patents Act. It was the stand of defendant that the patent is liable to be revoked under Section 64(1)(d) & CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 4 of 21 64(1)(h) of the Patents Act. Defendant submitted that sprouting is an age old process which has been followed since centuries. It was mentioned by the defendant that soya sprout is known in the public domain long before the plaintiff filed her patent application.
3.3 Defendant stated that the claimed patent relates to biosynthesized product which is essentially produced during the sprouting process of soybean. It was stated by the defendant that the sprouting conditions, as claimed by the plaintiff, were not very specific as it covered 1 to 30 days for the process of sprouting and an operating temperature range from 15 °C to 150°C . Defendant stated that both the parameters are very wide and not specific as to differentiate the invention from the probable outcome of an ordinary soybean seeds sprouting disclosed in prior act or by prior practice. It was the stand of defendant that the sprouting conditions of plaintiff's claims are so wide that a soybean seed would sprout in those conditions in almost all probabilities and every germination of soybean seeds would be covered in the claim condition.
3.4 Defendant mentioned that the parameters mentioned by the plaintiff in her claims were very broad and the same could not have been claimed in a patent. Besides this, it was submitted by the defendant that plaintiff has failed to disclose the best method of performing the invention as required under Section 10(4)(b) of the Patents Act and therefore, the patent is liable to be revoked under Section 64(1)(h) of the Patents Act. CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 5 of 21 3.5 Defendant mentioned that the subject matter of the suit is a process for obtaining a product and in such cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the alleged infringed product is identical to the product directly obtained by the patented process. Defendant submitted that plaintiff failed to discharge the said onus and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. After filing of the written statement, defendant abandoned the proceedings. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points of determination were framed:
1) Whether the plaintiff is a patentee of the invention, "A PROCESS OF PREPARATION OF AN ANTIDIABETES/BLOOD SUGAR REGULATING PRODUCTS FROM GLYCINE MAX (SOYBEAN) SEEDS"?
2) Whether the defendant has infringed the patent of plaintiff by selling the Sprouted Soya Flour?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages/rendition of account, if yes, for what period?
5. Since, defendant remained absent, therefore, the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Plaintiff led evidence and examined herself as PW-1. She supported the contents of the plaint by filing her evidence by way of affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A). She tendered in evidence the following documents; (i) Certified copy of detailed description of the process as CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 6 of 21 Ex.PW-1/1 (colly); (ii) Copy of certificate of registration and allotment of TIN, FSSAI Certificate, Patented Product Label, Invoices and history of the sale orders received in respect of patented product as Ex.PW-1/2 (colly); (iii) Copy of receipt of renewal fee of patent for the year 2018 as Ex.PW-1/3; (iv) Label of the infringed product as Ex.PW-1/4; (v) Bill and cash memo of the purchase of infringed product from e-platform i.e. Amazon.in as Ex.PW-1/5; (vi) Legal Notice dated 11.10.2018 as Ex.PW- 1/6; (vii) Postal Receipts of the legal notice as Ex.PW-1/6A and; (viii) Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-1/7.
6. Arguments on behalf of plaintiff heard. Record perused. Since, defendants chose to remain absent during the proceedings, therefore, the deposition of PW-1 has gone uncontroverted. However, this, in itself, is not a reason enough to pass a decree.
7. It is a settled principle of law that burden always lies upon the plaintiff to prove his case. Section 101 of the Evidence Act states; "whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent upon the existence of fact which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist". The Section further states; "when a person is bound to prove existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person". Thus, the Indian Evidence Act has expressly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lies on a person, who asserts it. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision in "Rangammal Vs Kuppu CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 7 of 21 Swami" AIR 2011 SC 2344.
8. Thus, the position of the law is that even in an ex-parte matter, the plaintiff is under an obligation to produce reliable evidence to establish his claim and the trial court is under duty to scrutinize the evidence adduced by the plaintiff.
9. It is the plaintiff's case that she invented a unique process of preparing powder form of sprouted soya seeds and blood sugar regulating product obtained from Glycine max (soybean seeds) and patented the product under a title, "A PROCESS OF PREPARATION OF AN ANTI-
DIABETES/BLOOD SUGAR REGULATING PRODUCT FROM GLYCINE MAX (SOYA BEAN SEEDS)". She has placed on record the certificate issued by the Controller of Patents. The certificate dated 06.03.2009 granted by the Controller of Patents is Ex.PW-1/1. It stands recorded in the certificate that plaintiff has been granted patent No.231606 on her application No.663/Del/203 filed on 02.05.2003. The patent certificate records as under;
"It is hereby certified that a patent has been granted to the patentee for an invention entitled A PROCESS OF PREPARATION OF AN ANTIDIABETES/BLOOD SUGAR REGULATING PRODUCTS FROM GLYCINE MAX (SOYBEAN) SEEDS as disclosed in the above mentioned application for the term of 20 years from 2nd day of May 2003, in accordance with the provisions of Patents Act, 1970".
10. Thus, it is established that plaintiff was granted patent in respect of a CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 8 of 21 process of preparation of an anti-diabetes/blood sugar regulating product from Glycine max (soybean) seeds and she falls under the definition of patentee as provided under Section 2(p) of the Patents Act.
11. Accordingly, it has been established that plaintiff is a patentee in respect of patented product. The first point of determination is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant. However, what needs to be considered is whether this fact, in itself, is sufficient to grant the relief claimed by the plaintiff under Section 108 of the Patents Act. In adjudicating upon the present matter, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Patents Act including the one on which reliance has been placed by the defendant.
12. Section 2 of the Patents Act deals with definitions and interpretation. Section 2(j) of the Act defines the meaning of an 'invention' and Section 2(l) defines 'new invention'. Section 2(m) of the Act defines the meaning of a 'patent' while Section 2(o) of the Act defines the meaning of 'patented process'. Section 2(p) of the Act defines the meaning of 'a patentee'. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:
"2(j) "invention" means a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application; 2(l) "new invention" means any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date of filing of patent application with complete specification, i.e., the subject matter has not fallen in public CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 9 of 21 domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art; 2(m) "patent" means a patent for any invention granted under this Act;
2(o) "patented article" and "patented process" mean respectively an article or process in respect of which a patent is in force.
2(p) "patentee" means the person for the time being entered on the register as the grantee or proprietor of the patent;"
13. Section 3 of the Act defines the situations which shall not be considered as inventions within the meaning of the Act. The relevant Section 3(c), (j) & (p) provides as under:
"3(c) the mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory [or discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature]; 3(j) plants and animals in whole or any part thereof other than micro-organisms but including seeds, varieties and species and essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals;
3(p) an invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known component or components."
14. Section 108 of the Act enumerates the relief which could be granted by the court in a suit for infringement of a patent. It provides as under:
"108. Reliefs in suits for infringement.-- (1) The reliefs which a court may grant in any suit for infringement include an injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) and, at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 10 of 21 account of profits.
(2) The court may also order that the goods which are found to be infringing and materials and implement, the predominant use of which is in the creation of infringing goods shall be seized, forfeited or destroyed, as the court deems fit under the circumstances of the case without payment of any compensation."
15. Section 107 of the Act provides that in a suit for infringement of a patent, every ground on which it may be revoked under Section 64 shall be available as a ground for defence. Section 64 of the Act provides the grounds for revocation of patents. The relevant grounds under Section 64(d) & (h) of the Act provides as under
"64(d) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of this Act;
64(h) that the complete specification does not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed, that is to say, that the description of the method or the instructions for the working of the invention as contained in the complete specification are not by themselves sufficient to enable a person in India possessing average skill in, and average knowledge of, the art to which the invention relates, to work the invention, or that it does not disclose the best method of performing it which was known to the applicant for the patent and for which he was entitled to claim, protection."
16. Section 104A of the Act deals with the burden of proof in case of suit CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 11 of 21 concerning infringement of a patent. It provides as under:
"104A. Burden of proof in case of suits concerning infringement.--(1) In any suit for infringement of a patent, where the subject matter of patent is a process for obtaining a product, the court may direct the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the product, identical to the product of the patented process, is different from the patented process if,-- (a) the subject matter of the patent is a process for obtaining a new product; or (b) there is a substantial likelihood that the identical product is made by the process, and the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent from him, has been unable through reasonable efforts to determine the process actually used: Provided that the patentee or a person deriving title or interest in the patent from him, first proves that the product is identical to the product directly obtained by the patented process. (2) In considering whether a party has discharged the burden imposed upon him by sub-section (1), the court shall not require him to disclose any manufacturing or commercial secrets, if it appears to the court that it would be unreasonable to do so."
17. Thus, it is apparent that under the scheme of the Act, the patentee may bring a suit for infringement of a patent and in the said suit, the opposite party can take in defence, the grounds, on which the patent may be revoked under Section 64 of the Act. In the present matter, defendant has taken defence in the written statement that the patent of the plaintiff does not fall under Section 64(d) & (h) of the Act. Although, defendant has not CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 12 of 21 filed a counter claim for the revocation of the patent but it had raised these grounds as defence in the written statement. Indeed, defendant has not led any evidence to substantiate these pleas but the grounds of defence are legal grounds and therefore, the same needs to be taken into consideration before granting the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
18. It is the plaintiff's case that she has invented a unique process of preparing a blood sugar regulating product from soybean seeds. The description of the invention and the inventive steps submitted by the plaintiff with the Controller of Patents have been placed on record. The summary of invention and the description of invention, as claimed by the plaintiff in the paper submitted with the Controller of Patent are also on record.
19. Plaintiff has claimed that she has invented a unique process of preparing a powder from germinated soya seeds after drying and grinding them. Glycine max is commonly known as Soybean. It is consumed widely around the globe and it is a known source of protein rich food. Soybean consists of a balanced proportion of amino acid required by human body. It is considered as healthy protein as it is packed with complete vegetable protein. It is a known fact that germination of soybean and other seeds increases its nutritive value. This fact is traditionally known and the practice of germinating soybeans and other seeds is followed across various countries including India. Plaintiff has claimed that she invented CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 13 of 21 a unique process of creating a blood sugar regulating product from soybean seeds. The process of manufacturing the said product was described by the plaintiff in the details submitted with the Registrar of Patents.
20. On examining the process disclosed by the plaintiff in creating the blood sugar regulating product from soybean, it is apparent that the process involves various stages. Plaintiff has claimed in the process that on the first occasion, the embryo of the soya seeds are germinated from a period between 1 to 30 days and thereafter, the germinated seeds need to be dried between 15°C to 150°C. She has stated that after drying the germinated seeds, the same needs to be grinded and dried again as a powder. She has mentioned that optionally, if required, an extract can be prepared from the germinating seeds. Subsequently, the powder can be mixed with other ingredients which may work as preservative and also improve the taste and texture of the powder. Plaintiff has claimed that a powder can also be formulated in various forms like tablet, capsules and gels. She has stated that the prepared powder can be used for preparation of various food items like bread, biscuits, flours, nutritional bars and drinks.
21. Admittedly, defendant is selling soya flour created from the sprouted soya seeds. Defendant is selling the soya flour under the packaging "NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR". The packaging and labeling CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 14 of 21 of the defendant has been placed on record and the same is Ex.PW-1/4. The packaging material contains a claim by the manufacturer that the flour has been created by a scientific method from sprouted soya seeds. Defendant has claimed on the packaging material that its product provides various benefits including lowering of cholesterol, inhabiting atheroselerosis. Defendant has claimed that its soya flour also helps in balancing sugar levels and preventing osteoporosis and some types of cancer. It has claimed that the consumption of the soya flour is highly recommended for those who has menopausal and PMI symptoms. The packaging material also discloses the mode of consuming the soya flour. It states that the whole pack of 400 grams of NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR needs to be mixed in 5kg of wheat flour, jawar flour used for making roti/chapati and variety of dishes can be made from the mixed flour. Defendant has admitted in the written statement that it has been claiming that the flour sold under its brand name NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR helps in balancing blood sugar level.
22. On appreciating the record, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff invented a new process of preparing powder from the sprouted soya seeds. She presented her application for patenting the product and process which was allowed by the Controller of Patents on 06.03.2009 and the patent was granted for an invention "A PROCESS OF PREPARATION OF AN ANTI-DIABETES/BLOOD SUGAR REGULATING PRODUCT CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 15 of 21 FROM GLYCINE MAX (SOYBEAN SEEDS). Plaintiff submitted the summary and description of invention with the Controller of Patents. She disclosed in the description of her invention that the same was found helpful and highly effective in controlling blood sugar of 30 volunteers diabetic patients. On the application and the description filed by the plaintiff, the Controller of Patents granted her patent for the powder extracted from grinded dried sprouted Soya bean Seeds. The product of the plaintiff certainly falls under the category of patented articles as defined under Section 82 of Patents Act, 1970. The defendant by manufacturing identical similar product has certainly infringed the patent of the plaintiff.
23. Defendant has submitted in the written statement that the patented article does not fall under the category of an invention. In order to support this stand, defendant has relied on the provisions of Section 3 (c), (j) & (p) of the Patents Act. I have gone through the record in the light of the defence taken by the defendant. Defendant has challenged the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that there was no novelty in the patented article. I do not agree with the said line of defence. Indeed, the nutritional benefits of soybean and germination of soya seeds are traditionally known but the process employed by the plaintiff for creating a powder from germinated soya seeds is something new. Plaintiff has claimed in the patented process that the soya seeds are dried after germination and thereafter, the powder CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 16 of 21 is prepared after grinding them. She has mentioned that the final powder obtained can be consumed by mixing it with other consumable materials like flour, breads, biscuits, nutritional bars and drinks. The process invented by the plaintiff for manufacturing involves an invented step capable of industrial application. It certainly falls under the category of an invention as contemplated under Section 2(j) of the Patents Act. I find no merit in the argument of the defendant that the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of Section 3 (c), (j) & (p) of the Act. There is no substance in the stand taken by the defendant that the patent of the plaintiff is liable to be revoked in view of grounds mentioned under Section 64(d) & (h) of the Act. Defendant has not led evidence to establish that any ground for revocation of the patent under Section 64 of the Act is made out.
24. Defendant has strongly relied on Section 104A of the Act and mentioned that burden of proof for proving the facts lied upon the plaintiff and she has failed to discharge the said burden. The submission of the defendant needs to be rejected. Section 104(A) of the Act provides that in a suit for infringement of the patent, where the subject matter of patent is a process for obtaining a product, the court may direct the defendant to prove that the process used by him to obtain the product, identical to the product of the patented process, is different from the patented process. Since, the defendant abandoned the proceedings, therefore, the occasion for issuing CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 17 of 21 the directions did not arise. In the present circumstances, once the plaintiff has proved that she has patented the process of producing the soya powder for being consumed after mixing it with the flour and other articles, it was for the defendant to establish that it has employed a different process for obtaining the product identical to the product of the patented process. However, defendant has neither cross-examined the plaintiff nor led evidence to establish its defence. In view of this, plaintiff's claim stands established. Since, the product manufactured and sold by the defendant is infringing the patent of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is certainly entitled to the relief of injunction. The production and the sale of the infringed product needs to be stopped immediately. However, the relief for damages and rendition of account is declined as plaintiff has not led any evidence to substantiate her claim.
25. In the matter of "Verizon Trademarks Services Vs Mr. Parth Solanki & Anr." (CS (Comm.) No. 1434/2016, decided on 09.11.2017), the High Court of Delhi refused to award the quantum of damages in an ex-parte matter because the plaintiff did not lead evidence in that regard. The High Court made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in "Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani" AIR 2003 SC 2508 wherein it was held as under:-
"33. ....In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of proof on the plaintiff is not very heavy. A prima facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of action would CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 18 of 21 suffice and the court would grant the plaintiff such relief as to which he may in law be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex parte the court is not bound to frame issues under Order 14 and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by Order 20 Rule 5. Yet the trial court should scrutinize the available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the "points for determination" and proceed to construct the ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one. Merely because the defendant is absent the court shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence."
26. The High Court of Delhi declined the damages claimed by the plaintiff in Verizon Trademarks Services' case (supra) and held as under:
"19. As far as the prayer with regard to the damages is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that since the plaintiffs have not led any evidence with respect to the quantum of damages suffered by the plaintiffs, the same cannot be granted in light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, 2014 (57) PTC 495 [Del][DB]. In fact, this Court recently in Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited Vs. HRCN Cable Network, CS(COMM) 48/2015 dated 09th October, 2017 has held as under:-
"19. However, this Court is not satisfied on the evidence led in the present case that the compensation awarded is CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 19 of 21 inadequate in the circumstances having regard to the three categories in Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] 1 All ER 367 and also the five principles in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027. In the event punitive damages are awarded in the present case, it would be an ad-hoc judge centric award of damages, which the Division Bench specifically prohibited in Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra)."
27. Coming to the present matter, apart from plaintiff, no other witness has been examined. Although, plaintiff has stated that she had been selling the patented product under the proprietorship business in the name of M/S DRYSPROUTS but no record of the sales and quantum of earning was produced. Plaintiff made no effort to produce the records of the defendant to give an idea about the profits earned by it from the sale of infringed product. In view of this, the relief of rendition, damages and rendition of accounts is declined.
28. In view of the findings and discussions made in the afore-mentioned paras, the suit stands partly decreed with the following reliefs:
A) Defendant M/s Shree Agro Foods are restrained from selling the infringed product under the name of NAVAVITA SPROUTED SOYA FLOUR or under any other name without obtaining consent from the plaintiff.
B) Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff.CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 20 of 21
29. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 16.12.2022 (Sudhanshu Kaushik) Addl. District Judge-02 & Waqf Tribunal New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/16.12.2022 CS No.1081/2018 Manju Pathak Vs Shree Agro Foods Page 21 of 21