Delhi District Court
Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs Vikas Kumar on 10 September, 2025
CS SCJ 3395/2018
Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARAN SALWAN, CIVIL JUDGE - 03,
DISTRICT CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ No. :- 3395/2018
CNR No. :- DLCT03-007518-2018
In the matter of;
Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia
S/o Lt. Sh. Bhupinder Singh Bhatia
R/o Building No. 59, M.M
Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi 110055.
.... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Vikas Kumar
S/o Shri Inder Raj Arora
R/o 1C-56 N.H, N.I.T. Faridabad 121001
...Defendant no. 1
2. Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia
S/o Late Madan Lal Bhatia
R/o 725-B, Sector 49, Faridabad-121001
...Defendant no. 2
3. Registrar of Trademark
Office At Plot No 32, Sector 14,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075
...Defendant no. 3
Date of Institution of the Suit : 20.11.2018
Date of Judgment : 10.09.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/23
(Charan Salwan)
Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ 3395/2018
Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, POSSESSION,
PERMANENT AND MANDATORY INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for Specific Performance, Possession, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction instituted by Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia ( hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') against Sh. Vikas Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant no. 1'), Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant no. 2') and Registrar of Trademark (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant no. 3') Brief Facts of the Case
2.(a) As per the averments made in the plaint, the brief facts are that the plaintiff is owner of firm Empire Furniture Company, having its registered office at Office-59, M.M. (Rani Jhansi) Road, New Delhi. It is averred that the defendant no. 1 had made an offer through telephone for the sale of his own registered trademark 'ALLWYN' which was accepted by the plaintiff, the description of the property is at follows:
"a. Trademark-"ALLWYN"
b. Class-"20"
c. Application number "1964158"
d. Journal number "1766-0"
e. Registration No. "1493926 f. Registered for steel Almirah and furniture."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
(b) It is averred that on 09.05.2018, Assignment Deed was signed between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and 2 for the transfer of ownership regarding 'ALLWYN' brand for almirah and furniture as included in class 25 of Trade Mark Act, 1999 at plaintiff's office. It is averred that at the time of signing of the trademark assignment agreement, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 1 Lakh in cash as token money for 'ALLWYN'. It is averred that it was insisted by defendant no. 2 that the transaction of Rs. 1 Lakh should not be mentioned in the assignment agreement because defendants wanted Rs. 1 Lakh in cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs to be paid by cheque. It is averred that on 09.05.2018, after signing the Trademark Assignment Agreement, the plaintiff had issued cheque of State Bank of India bearing no. 494222 of Rs. 2 Lakhs dated 09.05.2018 in favour of Sh. Vikas Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'said cheque') and the cheque was verified by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and it was mentioned by the plaintiff to the defendants that the said cheque will be given after completion of brand transfer proceeding according to Trade Mark Act, 1999.
(c) It is averred that on 19.05.2018, defendant no. 1 issued a cancellation letter to the plaintiff stating that he is no longer interested to go with plaintiff because of three issues. It is averred that these issues were never told before or at the time of signing of Assignment Agreement and accordingly this cancellation letter is illegal. It is averred that by way of this cancellation letter, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
defendant was avoiding plaintiff and trying not to perform his part of the trademark assignment agreement.
(d) It is averred that on 25.05.2018, the plaintiff replied to the cancellation letter and stated that the delay was from the side of the defendant because the defendant raised illegal demands after signing Trademark Assignment Agreement. It is averred that on 19.06.2018, the defendant no. 2 approached the plaintiff at his office and gave confirmation that defendant no. 1 and 2 are ready to transfer 'ALLWYN' brand to the plaintiff if the plaintiff will accept his condition regarding appointment of defendant no. 2 in plaintiff's office as business head with salary of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. It is averred that the plaintiff signed the agreement with defendant no. 2 on 19.06.2018 at the plaintiff's office and on 20.06.2018, the plaintiff had conversation with defendant no. 1 through telephone, whereby defendant no. 1 had given confirmation that plaintiff now deposit the said cheque of Rs. 2 Lakhs in his account on 21.06.2018.
(e) It is averred that on 21.06.2018, the plaintiff had deposited the cheque of Rs. 2 Lakhs bearing no. 494222 dated 09.05.2018 in the account of defendant no. 1 and started the process required for transfer of trademark on the same day. It is averred that on 21.06.2018, the plaintiff got information from his attorney that defendant no. 1 had already issued 'ALLWYN' brand to some other person and consequently, on the next day, the plaintiff issued letter regarding stop payment of Rs. 2 Lakhs to bank SBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
(f) It is averred that the plaintiff served legal notice upon the defendant on 25.06.2018 and on 27.07.2018 defendant no. 1 replied to the notice. It is averred that all the attempts on the part of the plaintiff to persuade defendant no. 1 to complete the transaction have failed.
(g) It is averred that the plaintiff is entitled to get the trademark transferred in his name and is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is ready to pay the balance sale consideration to defendant no. 1. Hence, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Pass a decree of specific performance of the contract in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to accept the balance sales consideration for the suit property and to transfer the allwyn brand in the name of plaintiff by filling withdrawal letter in the trademark department.
ii. Pass a decree for permanent and mandatory injunction in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in the suit property; iii. Allow the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- in this Hon'ble Court.
iv. Award the cost of litigation in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant;
v. Pass any other or further orders) this court may deem fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
Defence of the Defendants
3.(a) The defendants no. 1 and 2 have contested the matter and have filed joint written statement (hereinafter referred to as 'WS'). It is stated that the suit of the plaintiff is based on false, vexatious, concocted, and incorrect facts and is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is the owner of S. G. Industries having its registered office at 1C-56, N. I. T. Faridabad and is also the beneficial owner of registered trademark 'ALLWYN' having application no. 1964158 in class 20 and the defendant is using the same since 01.04.2007 and defendant no. 2 is the father-in-law of defendant no. 1. It is stated that the plaintiff telephonically and personally approached defendant no. 1 for buying the trademark 'ALLWYN'. It is stated that the plaintiff and defendant had several meetings and after the meetings, the defendant no. 1 became ready to sell his trademark to the plaintiff on the following conditions:
"a. That the plaintiff would make a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lacks Only/-) to the Defendant No.1 as a consideration amount of the Trademark.
b. That the plaintiff would give a job to Defendant No. 2 in his shop situated at B-119 Mansarovar Garden New Delhi-110015 on a salary of Rs. 1,50,000/-(Rs. One Lakh Only/-) per month. c. That Plaintiff told Defendant No. 1 that he has a plot in Dadri, Utter Pradesh on which he is going open a factory from own sources to work under the brand name "ALLWYN".
d. That the Plaintiff would bear all the expenses of transferring the trademark into his name."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
(b) It is stated that the plaintiff agreed to the abovementioned conditions and a trademark assignment agreement dated 09.05.2018 was executed between plaintiff and defendant no. 1. It is stated that at the time of signing the agreement, the defendant became shocked to see that the cheque through which the consideration amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs was to be paid to the defendant no. 1 by the plaintiff was filed as (Vikas Kumar), S. G. Industries 31552874516, whereas it was agreed between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 that the consideration amount would be made in the name of Vikas Kumar i.e. defendant no. 1. It is stated that when defendant no. 1 raised the objection, the plaintiff had taken the plea that if any difficulty would be faced by defendant no. 1 in clearing the said cheque, the plaintiff would issue a fresh one instead of the said cheque as mentioned in the agreement.
(c) It is stated that the conditions no. (b) and (c) were also not mentioned in the agreement as the plaintiff said that since this is an assignment agreement, only the consideration would be mentioned in it and the rest other conditions, the plaintiff will manage. It is further stated that the banker of defendant no. 1 returned the said cheque. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 informed the plaintiff about the return of cheque and the plaintiff ensured the defendant no. 1 that he would issue a fresh cheque in his favour with correct details when defendant no. 1 will return the old cheque. It is stated that the defendant no. 1 returned the said cheque to the plaintiff but fresh cheque was not issued by the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant no.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
1 inquired about condition no. B and drafted an agreement dated 15.05.2018. It is stated that agreement dated 15.05.2018 was only drafted and not signed and approved by the plaintiff.
(d) It is stated that after inquiry defendant no. 1 came to know that the plaintiff has sold his shop and also had no land. It is stated that the plaintiff breached all the conditions and consequently, on 19.05.2018, the defendant no. 1 issued a letter of cancellation of agreement dated 09.05.2018. It is stated that the plaintiff failed in honouring his promises and accordingly, the defendant cancelled the agreement dated 09.05.2018.
(e) All the other averments were denied by the defendants.
Replication
4. In the replication, the plaintiff has denied the contents of the Written Statement of the Defendants and has reiterated the contents of his plaint.
Issues
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 20.02.2020, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8/23
(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Specific Performance as prayed for? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
4) Relief.
Evidence of Plaintiff
6. To substantiate its case, the plaintiff examined the following witnesses:
(a) PW-1: Plaintiff, Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia.
(b) PW-2: Sh. Manoj Kumar MTS Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry Trade Mark Registry.
7. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A, which bears his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents:
i) Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) i.e. Original GST registration Certificate in the name of Empire Furniture Co.
ii) Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) (colly) i.e. original assignment deed.
iii) Ex. PW-1/3 i.e. copy of cheque bearing no. 494222 is de- exhibited and same is now marked as Mark A.
iv) Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) i.e. copy of cancellation letter by the defendants to the plaintiff.
v) Ex. PW-1/5 i.e. office copy of reply of letter by defendant no. 1 dt. 19.05.2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
vi) Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) i.e. defendant no. 2 signed an agreement with plaintiff.
vii) Ex. PW-1/7 (OSR) i.e. copy of deposited cheque receipt.
viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) i.e. copy of letter regarding stop payment of cheque Rs. 2,00,000/- of SBI Bank.
ix) Ex. PW-1/9 i.e. original legal notice.
x) Ex. PW1/10 (OSR) i.e. original reply of legal notice.
xi) Ex. PW1/11 i.e. net copy of the assignment deed in favour of Empire Safe Co.
8. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendants.
9. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined summoned witness Sh. Manoj Kumar MTS Staff, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce & Industry Trade Mark Registry, Intellectual Property Office Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi. He deposed as follows:
"I am the summoned witness. Today I have brought the summoned record i.e certified copy of trademark assignment deed named "ALLWYN" vide application No. 1964158 in class 20 between Sh. Vikas Kumar (defendant No.1) and Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia (plaintiff) on dated 09.05.2018. The certified copy is Ex. PW2/A(colly) running into 25 pages."
10. Thereafter, vide separate statement of the plaintiff recorded on 21.02.2023, PE was closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
Evidence of the Defendant No. 111. The Defendant examined himself as DW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW1/A bearing his signatures at point A and B and relied upon the following documents:
1. Copy of agreement dated Already exhibited as Ex. 19.06.2018 PW1/6. (inadvertently mentioned as Mark DW1/1 in the evidence affidavit)
2. Copy of letter of Already exhibited as Ex.
cancellation of agreement PW1/4. (inadvertently dated 19.05.2018 mentioned as Mark DW1/2 in the evidence affidavit)
3. Copy of cancellation letter Mark A. (inadvertently dated 19.06.2018 mentioned as Mark DW1/3 in the evidence affidavit)
12. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Evidence of the Defendant No. 213. Thereafter, the Defendant No. 2 examined himself. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. DW-2/1 bearing his signatures at point A and B. He relied upon the following documents-
1. Letter dated 19.05.2018 Already Ex. PW1/4 (mentioned as Mark DW2/2 in evidence affidavit)
2. Copy of Cancellation letter dated Already Mark A in 19.06.2018 evidence of DW-1 (mentioned as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
Mark DW2/3 in evidence affidavit)
14. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
15. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the defendants, DE was closed on 26.07.2024.
Evidence of the Defendant No. 316. No Evidence was led by the Defendant No.3.
17. I have heard the final arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendants and have perused the record carefully.
Findings
18. Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Specific Performance as prayed for? OPP
19. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 entered into an agreement for sale of trademark "ALLWYN" on 09.05.2018. It is averred that the plaintiff paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was to be paid by cheque which the plaintiff had handed over to the defen- dant No.1. It is averred by the plaintiff that vide cancellation later
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
19.05.2018 the defendant cancelled the Agreement. It is averred by the plaintiff that the cancellation is wrong and the plaintiff is ready to pay the balance sale consideration to defendant No.1.
20. The defence of the defendants is that, the defendant became ready to sell the trademark with the following conditions:
a. That the plaintiff would make a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 as a consideration amount of the Trademark.
b. That the plaintiff would give a job to Defendant No. 2 in his shop situated at B-119 Mansarover Garden New Delhi - 110015 at a salary of Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
c. That the plaintiff told Defendant No.1 that he has a plot in Dadri, Utter Pradesh on which he is going to open a factory from own sources to work under the brand name "ALLWYN".
d. That the plaintiff would bear all the expenses of transferring the trademark into his name.
21. It is stated by the defendants that the plaintiff did not comply with the conditions as mentioned above. It is stated by the defendant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
that the cheque through which consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was to be paid to the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff was in favor of (Vikas Kumar) S.G. Industries whereas it was specifically agreed be- tween plaintiff and the defendant No.1 that the cheque would be in the name of Sh. Vikas Kumar. It is stated that the same was returned by his banker and till date fresh cheque is not issued by the plaintiff. It is further stated that the conditions mentioned in (b) and (c) was not mentioned in the agreement and the plaintiff had orally assured that he will comply with the conditions.
22. It is stated by the plaintiff that he is ready and willing to per- form his part of the contract.
23. At this stage, it is imperative to peruse Section 16(b) of Spe- cific Relief Act, 1963. It reads as follows:
"who has become incapable of performing, or violates any es- sential term of, the contract that on his part remains to be per- formed, or acts in fraud of the contract, or willfully acts at vari- ance with, or in subversion of, the relation intended to be estab- lished by the contract; or"
24. It is stated by the defendant that the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract. Admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into Ex. PW1/2 voluntarily. The conditions of the Trademark Assignment Agreement are enu- merated in Ex. PW-1/2. The conditions are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14/23
(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
1. For and in consideration of the sum of 200000(Two Lakh only) paid by the Assignee to the Assignor by cheque of State Bank of India whose No is 494222 having date 09.05.2018 in the name of Vikas Kumar by The As-
signee. (The receipt of which is hereby acknowledged), the Assignor does hereby assign to the Assignee all rights, title and interests derived from and in connection with the Trademark in the Territory. (Photo copy of the cheque is attached as exhibit F).
2. The Assignor represents and warrants that it is the sole proprietor of all rights, title and interests derived from and in connection with the Trademark in Territory, and that the assignment of the Trademark from the Assignor to the Assignee shall not cause any infringement of industrial property rights of any kind party in the Territory. Assignor will not liable however for any liability or infringement done by any 3"° parties. Assignor however will stand by with the assignee all the time which may arise out of illegal use of the trade mark by the third parties. A part form this assignor is liable for fu- ture claimant by the 3rd parties regarding ALLWYN brand only.
3. Assignor is not having any dues in banks related to registered brand Name ALLWYN.
4. All right, title, interest and ownership in and to the trademarks referred to in the Trademark Registrations, including without limitation, the good will associated therewith given to the assignee by assignor.
5. Assignee retains right to sell and manufacturing of STEEL ALMIRAH AND FURNITURE AS INCLUDED IN CLASS 20 in the name of trans- ferred Trademark (ALLWYN)
6. Assignor will not be trading, manufacturing, advertise, selling any furni- ture and items comes under the list of furniture under the brand name (ALL- WYN)
7. Assignor will not file any trademark which is identical and phonetically similar to the transferred trademark (ALLWYN) Assignor will not contest or file any opposition regarding the transfer brand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
8. The Trademark is assigned in their present legal status, which is known to the Assignor. To the Assignor's best knowledge, there are no parties who are using the Trademark, own registrations or pending applications for registra- tion of the Trademark and there are no pending cases before the court or na- tional authorities, which may adversely affect the Trademark.
9. The Assignor shall furnish the Assignee with all necessary information on and in connection with the Trademark, which may be required to perfect ti- tle in the Trademark in the Assignee. The Assignor shall also furnish the As- signee with the original certificates covering the Trademark.
10. This Agreement shall come into effect on the date on which this Agree- ment is registered by the competent authority as required by the laws of the Territory. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall be submitted to the aforesaid authority in the Territory for its registrations. Each Party hereto shall fully cooperate with the other with regard to such registration or additional or approval that may be required in connection with the imple- mentation of any portion of this Agreement.
11. Assignor duty is to provide every document which will be required for trademark transfer process in the Appropriate department. Assignor will give full support to the assignee during the trademark transfer process or in any dispute arises related to the ownership of ALLWYN.
12. This Agreement and all amendments, modifications, alterations or sup- plements hereto, shall be construed under, governed by, and the legal rela- tions between the Parties hereto determined in accordance with the laws of India.
13. Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or breach, termination of invalidity hereof shall be settled through as per the Governing law of India between the Parties and jurisdic- tion will be the Delhi.
14. Any amendments, modifications, alternations or supplements to this Agreement shall be made in writing to be legally effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
15. Each Party acknowledges that it has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound hereby, and represents and warrants that the individ- ual executing this Agreement on its behalf is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement.
25. Now, perusal of the above shows that the only condition to be performed was payment of Rs. 2 lacs in the name of Sh. Vikas Kumar by the plaintiff. Also, it is mentioned in clause (1) that the receipt of the cheque is acknowledged.
26. As per the defendant, the plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract. It is the case of the defendant that condition (b) and
(c) as mentioned above have not been reduced into writing, but was orally assured by the plaintiff that he will abide by the same.
27. At this stage it is imperative to peruse Section 91 and 92 of In- dian Evidence Act'1872, which reads as follows:
"Section 91: Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents -- When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of prop- erty, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, ex- cept the document itself, or secondary evidence or its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions herein before contained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17/23
(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
Exception 1 - When a public officer is required by law to be ap- pointed in writing and when it is shown any particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2 - Wills [admitted to probated in [India]] may be proved by the probated.
Explanation 1 - This Section applies equally to cases in which the contracts grants and dispositions of property referred to are contained in one document, and to cases in which they are contained in more documents than one.
Explanation 2 - Where there are more originals than one, one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3 - The statement, in any document whatever, of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
Section 92: Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement - When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a docu- ment, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the par- ties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms;
Proviso (1).--Any fact may be proved which would invalidate anv document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due ex- ecution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 'want or failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18/23
(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
Proviso (2).--The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this pro- viso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document:
Proviso (3).--The existence of any separate oral agreement, constitut- ing a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved: Proviso (4).-The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of prop- erty, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents:
Proviso (5).--Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that de- scription, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract: Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts."
28. As per the above-said provisions, existence of a separate oral agreement on which the document is silent may be proved. The con- ditions are already mentioned in the trade mark assignment agree- ment. Therefore, the document is not silent on the conditions which are to be performed by the parties. Therefore, as per Section 92, the defendant is barred from proving the existence of a separate oral agreement. Even otherwise, the defendant has not proved existence of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
a separate oral agreement of performance of conditions (b) and (c). It is pertinent to mention that Ex. PW-1/6 is executed between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and it is not mentioned that the compli- ance of Ex. PW1/6 is essential to the Trademark Assignment Agree- ment. Therefore, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff agreed to comply/perform conditions (b) and (c).
29. Now, coming back to the first condition, it is stated by the de- fendant that the cheque was issued incorrectly. Perusal of Ex. PW-1/2 shows that the cheque was to be issued in the name of Vikas Kumar. Admittedly, the cheque is issued in the name of Vikas Kumar, but as '(Vikas Kumar) S.G. Industries 3152874516'. It is stated by the de- fendant that the banker of the defendant returned the cheque. How- ever, the defendant has not proved that the said cheque was returned. The defendant has not placed any document, nor examined any wit- ness to show that the cheque was retuned. It is also stated by the de- fendant that when he informed the plaintiff that his banker returned the cheque, the plaintiff said he is ready and willing to issue the cheque afresh. It is also pertinent to mention that the defendant has stated in his examination, that the plaintiff showed him the cheque when the agreement was being executed. However, the defendant did not raise any objection to cheque. Now, the cheque is issued in the name of Vikas Kumar. The plaintiff has mentioned the details of his firm. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has not breached the conditions of the contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
30. In view of the above-discussion, it is clear that there was only one condition of the Trademark Assignment Agreement, i.e., pay- ment of Rs. 2,00,000/- for which the plaintiff had duly issued the said cheque, but, as per the defendant, that cheque was issued in the wrong name. Further, the defendant has failed to prove that condition
(b) and (c) are essential to the Trademark Assignment Agreement.
31. Therefore, in view of the above-discussion, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has breached the terms of the con- tract. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Specific Performance of the Contract. Ac- cordingly, Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
32. Issue No. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
33. Since the plaintiff is entitled to a Decree of Specific Perfor- mance, the defendant is restrained from selling, alienating, transfer- ring, or creating any third-party interest in the suit property. Accord- ingly, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
34. Issue No.3: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
35. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree of mandatory injunction but has not detailed as to what relief is being sought. The plaintiff has prayed a mandatory injunction and permanent injunction for the same relief. Therefore, as per provisions of Order XIV Rule 5 (2), I deem it fit to strike out this issue.
RELIEF:
36. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings given in the above issues, documents placed on record and evidence led by the parties, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The plaintiff is held entitled to the following reliefs:
1. The Relief of Specific Performance - The plaintiff is entitled to the decree of Specific Performance of Trademark Assignment Agreement executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 19.05.2018. The plain-
tiff and defendant no. 1 are directed to comply with the conditions of the Trademark Assignment Agree- ment dated 09.05.2018 within 30 days of this order.
2. The Relief of Permanent Injunction - The plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant thereby restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, transferring, or creating any third- party interest in the suit property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22/23(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS SCJ 3395/2018 Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors.
37. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
38. Cost of the suit are decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
39. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by CHARAN CHARAN SALWAN SALWAN Date:
2025.09.10 Pronounced in open court: (Charan Salwan) 16:52:06 +0530 Dated: 10.09.2025 Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23/23
(Charan Salwan) Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi