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 0]

Bombay High Court

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd vs Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd on 9 February, 2021

Author: K.R.Shriram

Bench: K.R.Shriram

                                         1/3                     22 & 23.IAL-2797-2021.doc




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                         IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                   INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2797 OF 2021
                                     IN
                      COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.27 OF 2009

Parle Products Private Limited           ....Applicants/Plaintiffs
          V/s.
Parle Agro Private Limited           ....Defendants
                                    WITH
                   INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2801 OF 2021
                                     IN
                      COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.10 OF 2007

Parle Products Private Limited           ....Applicants/Plaintiffs
          V/s.
Parle Agro Private Limited           ....Defendants
                                    ----
Mr. Aditya Chitale a/w. Mr. Nishin Shrikhande and Mr. Avinash Belge i/b.
RKD Legal Services LLP for applicants/plaintiffs in both suits.
Mr. Nishad Nadkarni a/w. Ms. Khushboo Jhunjhunwala i/b. Khaitan and Co.
for defendants in both suits.
                                    ----
                                     CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 9th FEBRUARY 2021 P.C. :

1 Heard Mr. Chitale and also considered the company applications. For reasons mentioned in the company applications, the order dated 27th January 2021 dismissing the suits is recalled. The suits are restored to file.
2 Company applications accordingly stand disposed. 3 Mr. Chitale, counsel for plaintiffs states that after the Court received the affidavit in examination in chief of PW-2, before the Gauri Gaekwad 2/3 22 & 23.IAL-2797-2021.doc Commissioner, plaintiffs wanted to ask few more questions in examination in chief to PW-2 to which defendants objected. The questions and the answers thereto have been recorded by the Commissioner subject to the objections raised by defendants.
4 In my view, since defendants have not commenced cross examination of PW-2, there is no harm and no prejudice will be caused to defendants if plaintiffs are allowed to ask few more questions in examination in chief. Infact this Court has also permitted parties to ask further questions in examination in chief in addition to the affidavit of evidence filed. Defendants have the right to cross examine the witness. 5 The Commissioner already appointed shall endeavor to complete recording of evidence of PW-2 by 31 st March 2021. The Commissioner to fix minimum two/three dates per session for cross examination of PW-2. If the parties do not respond promptly within 48 hours of receiving a communication from the Commissioner suggesting the subsequent dates, the Commissioner to go ahead and fix the dates convenient to the Commissioner and the parties shall make themselves available at the time and dates fixed by the Commissioner. If plaintiffs or the witness does not remain present, the Commissioner should close the evidence of PW-2 as not made available for cross and if defendants do not remain present to cross examine the witness, defendants' cross examination should be treated closed as no cross. Once the dates are fixed, the Commissioner not to grant adjournment on any ground whatsoever.

Gauri Gaekwad 3/3 22 & 23.IAL-2797-2021.doc 6 Stand over to 6th April 2021 for directions.




                                                                    (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
           Digitally signed
Gauri A.   by Gauri A.
           Gaekwad
Gaekwad    Date: 2021.02.10
           18:22:24 +0530




           Gauri Gaekwad