Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Mr. Manni Malhotra refused to sign the inventory report and the "On the spot" proceedings and told me and Mr. Biala, that we could take the goods away, but he would not allow the goods to be handed over to him on superdarinama after being sealed. However, when we got ready to seal and take away the goods as highlighted in the inventory report away, Mr. Manni Malhotra, changed his mind, accepted a copy of the order, gave his acknowledgement on it (Annexed as Annexure A), and also allowed us to seal the goods on superdarinama. Accordingly, the goods have been seized on superdarinama and handed over to the Mr. Manni Malhotra. (Copy of Superdarinama annexed as Annexure C)."

According to Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, this statement was evidently false as the respondent no.2/ defendant no.2 had admitted to having signed the inventory of the seized goods and the superdarinama that had been prepared during the Local Commission raid conducted at his shop on 03rd September, 2013 i.e. more than four years back.

(B) "Respondent no.2‟s/defendant no.2‟s shop only dealt in shades/eyewear."

On 03rd September, 2013, the Local Commissioner seized from respondent no.2's/defendant no.2's shop counterfeit ties, belts, etc. bearing the petitioner's/plaintiff's trademarks.