Karnataka High Court
M/S Whirlpool Of India Ltd vs M/S Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd on 10 February, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
O.S.No.3/2012
BETWEEN:
M/S.WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.
...PLAINTIFF
(BY SRI.PRANAV KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
M/S.SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT.LTD.
...DEFENDANT
(BY SRI.SUJATH AHMED,
SRI.KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVS.)
THIS ORIGINAL SUIT IS FILED UNDER ORDER RULE
A OF CPC PRAYING TO PASS JUDGMENT AND DECREE
FOR PERMANENT AND PERPETUAL INJUNCTON, IN
FAVOUR OF THE PALINTIFF AND AGINST THE DEFENDANT,
THERBY RESTRAINING THE DEFENDANT BY THEMSELVES,
THEIR DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, SERVANTS,
REPRESENTATIVES, STOCKISTS, DEALER, AGENTS AND
ALL OTHER PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER OR THROUGH
THEM OR ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM OR
OTHERWISE HOWSOEVER FROM MANUFACTURING,
SELLING DISTRIBUTING, OFFERING FOR SALE,
ADVERTISING, EXPORTING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
DEALING WITH REFRIGERATOR WITH BOTTOM DRAWER
EMBODYING THE PLAINTIFF'S REGISTERED DESIGNS
BEARING NOS.198386 (IN CLASS 15-07), 198384 (IN CLASS
15.07), 198387 (IN CLASS 15.07), 202764 (N CLASS 15.99),
2
202765 (IN CLASS 15-99) AND 202766 (IN CLASS 15.99) IN
ANY MANNER WHATSOVER AND ETC.
THIS ORIGINAL SUIT COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the present original suit made the submission that they have already filed a memo seeking withdrawal of the said suit. Perused the memo dated 16.01.2016.
2. Said memo is placed on record. In view of the said memo, the original suit is disposed of as withdrawn.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant has also filed a memo informing that he will withdraw the counter claim made in the said suit. Said memo is placed on record and in view of the said memo the counter claim by the defendant in the said suit is said to have been withdrawn.
3
4. Plaintiff is having the liberty to file fresh suit in case if there is violation of the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties. The defendant is also having a liberty to contest the suit.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR