Delhi District Court
Metro Institutes Of Medical Sciences P. ... vs Satya Sai Cancer Society on 20 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (SOUTHEAST),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
TM No. 09/13
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd.
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
Satya Sai Cancer Society
..... Defendant
O R D E R
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/s 124 of the Trade Marks Act moved by the plaintiff.
2. It is stated in the application that the impugned trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research Centre" were registered in favour of the defendant under the registration numbers 1591081 and 1591082 which are liable to be removed from the Trade Marks Register as the registration obtained by the defendant are invalid, who has obtained the registration for an identical mark and is a subsequent user of the same. The defendant had applied for registration of the impugned trade marks in the month of August, 2007 whereas the plaintiff has been continuously using the mark "Metro" since 1997 and is not only prior user but also the prior TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society registered. The plaintiff by way of present proceedings has challenged the validity of the impugned registration and has contended that the impugned registration have been obtained by the defendant by playing fraud on the Trade Marks Registry and are liable to be rectified under Sections 9 (2) (a), 11 (1), 11 (2), 11 (3), 11 (10), 18, 47 (1) and 57 (2) of the Trade Marks Act. It is stated that the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) alone has jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate upon the issue of invalidity of impugned registrations and therefore the plaintiff is seeking permission to file appropriate rectification applications before IPAB for removal of the impugned marks registered under Nos. 1591081 and 1591082 in favour of the defendant.
3. The defendant contested the application by filing reply denying the averments made in the application. It is contended that application is premature and has been filed to delay the proceedings. The defendant has been using the mark "Metro" since 2006 which is evident from the accounts furnished by the defendant and right to prove prior user of the mark "Metro" can be decided after trial and hence the application is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended that there are several users of the mark "Metro" which is apparent from the search results from the Trade Mark Registry furnished by the defendant and therefore the plaintiff themselves could not have TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society obtained the registration and cannot challenge the validity of registered trade mark of the defendant. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the application.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and gone through the written submissions and also perused the record carefully.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the trade mark "Metro" has been extensively used by the plaintiff since 1997 and the plaintiff got registration of the said trade mark in the year 2007, while the defendant claims user of the trade mark "Metro" since 2006 and has applied for its registration in the year 2007 and it shows that the plaintiff is not only prior user but is also prior registered proprietor of the trade mark "Metro" and hence impugned registrations could not have been granted by the Trade Mark Registry in favour of the defendant. He further argued that the impugned registration have been obtained by the defendant by playing fraud on the Trade Marks Registry and are liable to be declared invalid. Ld. Counsel further vehemently argued that impugned trade marks of the defendant are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's register trade marks and are likely to cause immense confusion in the minds of the general public and therefore the plaintiff by way of present application is seeking permission of the court to initiate rectification proceedings before IPAB in respect of registrations of impugned trade marks TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society obtained by the defendant and if the plaintiff is not allowed to do so, the plaintiff shall suffer a great prejudice.
6. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for defendant argued that application has been moved to delay the proceedings of the case and is only a pressure tactic to settle the matter and avoid trial. She further argued that the plaintiff only operates in the Northern States of the country whereas the defendant operates its business in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh with its registered trademark which is phonetically similar but is visually different to that of plaintiff's trade mark and therefore there is no infringement of the registered trade marks of the plaintiff. She further argued that the plaintiff was aware of the trade mark of the defendant but did not initiate any proceedings against the defendant and has moved the present application at this stage to pressurize the defendant to settle the matter. She further argued that it is a matter of trial as to whether the user of the defendant is valid or not and hence application is liable to be dismissed. She further argued that as per the registrations dated 20.04.2007 obtained by the plaintiff in respect of their trade marks, their usage has been confined to the UT of Delhi, but the plaintiff is operating in several part of Northern India which is totally contrary to the terms of its trade mark registration and as such the plaintiff has breached the terms of its own registrations. Ld. Counsel for defendant has further vehemently TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society argued that as per trade mark search results, there are several other users of the mark "Metro" under different services and therefore there is no infringement of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff by the defendant. She has prayed for dismissal of the application.
7. The Ld. Counsel for plaintiff in rebuttal submitted that use of the mark "Metro" by other users is in respect of other services such as restaurants/hotels, super markets, saloons etc., but the defendant under the impugned trade mark "Metro" is offering identical services i.e. Medical services as offered by the plaintiff under its registered trade mark and therefore the defendant cannot be allowed to use the identical trade mark for identical services of which the plaintiff is the prior user and registered proprietor and use of the said mark by the defendant infringes the plaintiff's registered trade mark and may destroy the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction, rendition of accounts of profit and delivery up against the defendant. The plaintiff claims that in order to provide the health care to the common man, the plaintiff founded the first hospital under the name, Metro Hospitals & Heart Institute at Noida in June 1997 and thereafter the plaintiff set up a multispecialty wing in 1998 under the name Metro Multispecialty Hospital. Thereafter the plaintiff has established different specialties under the trade name 'Metro' and the TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society trade name 'Metro' has been thus extensively used by the plaintiff since 1997 in India and has acquired formidable goodwill and reputation. The plaintiff has obtained registration for its trade name "Metro", "Metro Heart Institute" and "Metro Hospital" vide registration No. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501 respectively, all dated 20.04.2007. On account of good quality medical services being provided by the plaintiff under the trade name "Metro", the same is widely publicized in the print media and has acquired secondary significance and symbol of highest standards quality of services being offered by the plaintiff. It is stated that during a random search on the Internet, the plaintiff came to know about the defendant's hospital namely "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research Centre" and accordingly issued a legal notice dated 23.09.2011 through counsel to which no reply was received. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had stopped the use of the trade mark "Metro" of the plaintiff, but plaintiff came to know that the defendant has applied and obtained registration of the trade mark "Metro Hospital" under no. 1591081 dated 16.08.2007 and "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research Centre"
under No. 1591082 dated 16.08.2007. The plaintiff issued another legal notice dated 20.07.2013 which was not replied by the defendant. It is stated that the defendant wrongly and illegally continues to use the impugned trade mark in violation of the plaintiff's registered trade TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society marks nos. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501. It is further stated that the impugned trade marks of the defendant are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade marks as they comprise the plaintiff's trade mark "Metro". The plaintiff is not only prior user but is also prior registered and accordingly the impugned registrations could not have been granted by the Trade mark Registry in favour of the defendant. The defendant has obtained the impugned trade marks by playing fraud on the Trade Mark Registry and same are liable to be rectified under Section 9 (2) (a), 11 (1), 11 (2), 11 (3), 11 (10), 18, 47 (1) and 57 (2) of the Trade Marks Act. It is further averred that plaintiff has been offering medical and hospital services under the trade mark "Metro" in India since 1997 and is registered trade mark since 2007 under the trade mark registration nos. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501 and if the defendant is not injuncted from using the name "Metro" for identical services, the same would destroy the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and the consumers are likely to believe that the plaintiff has licensed the trade mark "Metro" to the defendant for medical and hospital services or that the defendant has some trade connection with the plaintiff . The defendant by using the impugned trade name/mark is aimed at encashing upon the image and goodwill acquired by the plaintiff thereby causing irreparable damage to reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society prayed for passing a decree of permanent injunction in its favour restraining the defendant from using the mark "Metro" in any manner as trade name/ trade mark in respect of medical services or any other trade mark or trade name deceptively similar thereto, a decree for delivery up of all the infringing material and for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendant.
9. The defendant filed the written statement contending that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as defendant carries on business at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. It is further contended that the defendant is the lawful user of its own legally registered trade mark and hence the present suit is barred in law as per the provisions of Section 28 (3) of Trade Marks Act which expressly bars a suit for infringement of trade mark against the registered proprietor. It is stated that defendant had applied and obtained registration of two trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital & Cancer Research Centre" under the registration No. 1591081 and 1591082 respectively on 16.08.2007 and as such being the lawfully registered owner of the said trade marks, the defendant has been using the same and there has been no instance of infringement over the plaintiff's trade mark. It is further averred that the defendant is the registered proprietor of the trade marks "Metro Hospital" with a mathematical '+' sign and "Metro Hospital and TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society Cancer Research Centre" and are operating in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh only, whereas the plaintiff operates in the Northern states of the county and the trade marks of the defendant are though phonetically similar but visually different to that of the plaintiff's trade marks. The other contents of the plaint are denied and the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10. From the aforesaid narration of the facts, it is apparent that the plaintiff has claimed that it has been offering medical and hospital services under the trade mark "Metro" in India since 1997. In support of its claim, the plaintiff has placed on record a bunch of documents viz. copy of various newspaper articles, magazine articles, copy of various letter of empanelment issued by various institutions, promotional material such as catalogs, brochures, copy of invoices raised by the plaintiff for sale of medical services, copy of invoices of advertisement, copy of advertisement etc. These documents show that the plaintiff has been using the trade mark "Metro" since 1997. The plaintiff has obtained registration of the trade mark "Metro" vide registration No. 1551499 dated 20.04.2007, "Metro Heart Institute"
vide registration No. 1551500 dated 20.04.2007 and "Metro Hospital"
vide registration No. 1551501 dated 20.04.2007 under Class 42 category under the Trade Mark Registrations. The plaintiff has also claimed to have spent huge amount on the advertisement under the TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society trade name "Metro" for its hospital and medical services. On the other hand, the defendant is claiming the user of the trade mark"Metro"
since 2006 and has obtained the registration of trade marks "Metro Hospital" vide registration No. 1591081 and "Metro Hospital & Cancer Research Centre" vide registration No. 1591082 on 16.08.2007.
11. It is apparent that the impugned trade mark of the defendant is phonetically similar as that of the plaintiff as also admitted by the defendant in the written statement. However, visually also, the impugned trade mark of the defendant, prima facie, appears to be deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as the word "Metro" is prominent in the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as well as in the impugned trade mark of the defendant.
12. From the documents and material placed on record by the plaintiff, prima facie, it appears that plaintiff has acquired formidable goodwill and reputation under the trade name "Metro" and has been using the trade name "Metro" since 1997. Apparently, the defendant is the subsequent user of the trade name "Metro" since 2006 which even is disputed by the plaintiff. Though, the defendant in support of its claim that it has been using the trade mark "Metro" since 2006 has placed on record the some Audit report, but except the said audit report, nothing more has been placed on record to show that the trade TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society name "Metro" allegedly used by the defendant since 2006 has acquired a secondary significance regarding its association with the defendant.
13. The plaintiff has claimed that it is the prior user and prior registered proprietor of trade name "Metro" and hence impugned registrations could not have been granted by the Trade Mark Registry in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff has further claimed that the use of the impugned trade marks by the defendant which is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff may cause confusion in the minds of the general public and they are likely to believe that defendant has some association with the plaintiff or that the defendant's services are as safe as the plaintiff's services under the trade name "Metro" and same may cause loss to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus by way of present application is seeking permission of the court to initiate rectifications proceedings before IPAB for removal of the impugned trade marks registered by the Trade Marks Registry in favour of the defendant.
14. It would be relevant to go through the relevant provisions of Section 124 of Trade Marks Act, which are reproduced as under: Stay of proceedings where the validity of registration of the trade mark is questioned, etc. (1) Where in any suit for infringement of a trade mark
(a) the defendant pleads that registration of the plaintiff's trade TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society mark is invalid, or
(b) the defendant raises a defence under clause (e) of subsection (2) of section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of registration of the defendant's trade mark, the court trying the suit (hereinafter referred to as the court), shall
(i) if any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff's or defendant's trade mark are pending before the Registrar or the Appellate Board, stay the suit pending the final disposal of such proceedings;
(ii) if no such proceedings are pending and the court is satisfied that the plea regarding the invalidity of the registration of the plaintiff' or defendant's trade mark is prima facie tenable, raise an issue regarding the same and adjourn the case for a period of three months from the date of the framing of the issues in order to enable the party concerned to apply to the Appellate Board for rectification of the register.
(2) (3) (4) (5)
15. Bare perusal of the provisions of Section 124 of Trade Marks Act shows that permission to initiate rectifications proceedings in respect of infringed trade marks as sought by plaintiff by way of present application can be granted, if the plaintiff is able to raise a prima facie issue regarding the invalidity of the registration of the trade marks of the defendant.
16. From the material available on record, the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be prior user of the trade name "Metro". From the registration certificates placed on record by the plaintiff, it is also evident that the plaintiff has obtained the registration of the trade TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society marks "Metro", "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Heart Institute" on 20.04.2007 prior to the registration of the impugned trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research Centre"
of the defendant who obtained the registration of the impugned trade marks on 16.08.2007. Registration of the defendant would show that the defendant itself claimed the user of trade name "Metro" since 2006. Therefore, in view of registration certificates placed on record by the plaintiff coupled with the other material available on record, the issue raised by the plaintiff regarding invalidity of the impugned trade marks of the defendant prima facie appears to be tenable.
17. The contention of the defendant that plaintiff has not taken any action against the defendant before filing the present suit does not debar the plaintiff from seeking permission to initiate rectification proceedings in respect of impugned trade marks after filing of the suit.
18. I also do not find any merit in the contention of the defendant that as per search results from the Trade Mark Registry, there are several other users of the mark "Metro" and therefore the plaintiff cannot challenge the validity of registered trade mark of the defendant. The plaintiff has categorically stated that it has no grievance against the persons who are using the mark "Metro" for other services such as restaurants/hotels, super markets, saloons etc. TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society However, the defendant is using the mark "Metro" in respect of the hospital and medical services and the plaintiff also being in the same business, it may be prejudicial to the interest of plaintiff.
19. So far the contention of the defendant that plaintiff has breached the terms of its own registration by operating with its registered trade marks in several parts of Northern states of country, where its usage was confined to Delhi only, is concerned, it is apparent that plaintiff has obtained registration of three trade marks "Metro", "Metro Heart Institute" and "Metro Hospital" vide registration No. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501 respectively, all dated 20.04.2007. Perusal of the registration certificates placed on record by the plaintiff shows that there is no disclaimer in respect of trade marks "Metro" and "Metro Heart Institute", while the services of the plaintiff under the trade mark "Metro Hospital" is restricted in the UT of Delhi only. Since the plaintiff has got two registered trade marks in respect of which there is no disclaimer and same is valid in whole of the country, it cannot be said that plaintiff has breached the terms of the registration as claimed by the defendant.
20. Similarly, the contention of the defendant that there is no infringement of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as the defendant is operating in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, whereas the plaintiff operates in Northern states of the county does not appear to TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society be tenable. As discussed above, the plaintiff has got registration of the trade mark "Metro" and "Metro Heart Institute" which is valid for whole country, the use of the impugned trade mark by the defendant in Madhya Pradesh will give a cause of action to the plaintiff to initiate the proceedings if same are infringing the registered trade marks of the plaintiff.
21. In view of aforesaid discussions, the plaintiff has made out a case to grant permission to file rectification application before IPAB in respect of impugned trade marks of the defendant. Hence, application is allowed.
Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 20th January, 2015 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
TM No. 09/13
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02 (SOUTHEAST), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd.
..... Plaintiff
Vs.
Satya Sai Cancer Society
..... Defendant
O R D E R
22. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. moved by the plaintiff.
23. It is stated in the application that the defendant in the written statement has falsely stated that it has been using the name "Metro" in respect of hospital and medical services since 2006. However, the documents filed by the defendant itself show that the aforesaid claim of the defendant is false and untrue. It is contended that advertisement of the defendant issued in the magazines 'The Look' and "Aaj Ki Aawaaz', in April, 2013 and June, 2013 respectively announcing the completion of 5 years of the defendant hospital clearly shows that the defendant hospital has been operating only from sometime in the year 2008 and therefore the defendant has TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society made false averment in the written statement that it has been operating since 2006 for which defendant is liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, the plaintiff has prayed for initiation of appropriate proceedings against the defendant for swearing on oath false averments.
24. The defendant filed reply to the application denying the averments made in the application. It is contended that the application is premature and has been filed to delay the proceedings. It is stated that the defendant has been using the trade name "Metro" since 2006 which is evident from the accounts furnished by the defendant and right to prove prior user can be decided in a trial and hence present application serves no purpose at this stage. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the application.
25. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
26. The Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that defendant has falsely averred its user of the impugned trade mark since 2006 in the written statement, while the documents filed by the defendant shows completion of 5 years of defendant hospital in the year 2013 which corroborates the fact that the defendant has been using the impugned trade mark since 2008 and not since 2006 as falsely claimed in the written statement and therefore defendant is TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society liable to be prosecuted u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
27. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for defendant has argued that at this stage, there cannot be a mini trial to ascertain as to since when the defendant has been using the trade name "Metro" and same can be decided only after trial. She further submitted that no much reliance can be placed on the advertisements published in the magazines as the Marketing Department of the defendant may have given the said date and that does not conclusively prove that the claim of the defendant in the written statement is false. She submitted that defendant has not made any false claim in the written statement and has prayed for dismissal of the application.
28. The plaintiff by way of present suit is seeking inter alia decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using the impugned trade marks. The plaintiff claims that it has been using the trade name "Metro" for providing medical and hospital services since 1997 and has obtained the registration of the trade marks "Metro", "Metro Heart Institute" and "Metro Hospital" vide registration No. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501 respectively, all dated 20.04.2007. It is further claimed that the defendant has infringed the aforesaid registered trade mark of the plaintiffs by using the trade name "Metro" of which the plaintiff is not only the prior user but also prior registered proprietor.
TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society
29. The defendant in the written statement took a plea that it has been using the trade name "Metro" since 2006 and has obtained the registration of the trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital & Cancer Research Centre" under the registration No. 1591081 and 1591082 respectively on 16.08.2007 and since the defendant is the registered proprietor of the aforesaid trade marks, it has not infringed the registered trade marks of the plaintiff.
30. Now, by way of present application, the plaintiff is seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the defendant on the ground that the claim of the defendant in its written statement of its user of the trade name "Metro" since 2006 is false and incorrect and contrary to the record. The said contention of the plaintiff is based on the premise that the advertisement published by the defendant in the magazines in the month of April, 2013 and June, 2013 showing completion of 5 years of defendant hospital shows that the defendant hospital has completed the five years in the year 2013. On the basis of this advertisement in the magazines, the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff would argue that if the 5 years from the publication of these advertisement is counted, then the defendant is in use of the impugned trademark since 2008 and therefore the claim of the defendant that it is the user of the impugned trade marks since 2006 is false and incorrect.
TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society
31. However, I do not find any merit in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Only on the basis of advertisement in the magazines showing completion of 5 years of defendant hospital, it cannot be said, at this stage, that the defendant has made false statement in the written statement and the claim of the defendant that it is in the use of the trade name "Metro" since 2006 is false and incorrect. I find substance in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for defendant that there cannot be a mini trial at this stage to find out that since when the defendant is in use of the trade name "Metro". If some Marketing Department of the defendant has got carried out the advertisement in the magazines showing completion of 5 years of the defendant hospital in the year 2013, it does not imply that claim of the defendant in the written statement regarding its user of the trade name "Metro" since 2006 is false. It is a matter of trial as to since when the defendant has been using the trade mark "Metro" and at this stage, there cannot be any mini trial for ascertaining the same.
32. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rugmini Ammal by LRs Vs. V. Narayana Reddiar (2007) 12 SCC 611 that, "Normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court and this is done at the stage when the proceedings is concluded and the final judgment is rendered".
TM No. 09/13
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society
33. The Hon'b'e Delhi High Court also held in Punjab Tractors Ltd. Vs. M/s International Tractors Ltd. 167 (2010\) DLT 490 that, "An application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only and not at the interim stage as the defendant/ applicant have pressed in the present case. It is the settled legal position that the said provision cannot be resorted to, to satisfy a private grudge of the litigant."
34. In the light of aforesaid discussions and law laid down in the authorities cited supra, I do not find any merit in the present application at this stage and hence same is hereby dismissed.
Announced in open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 20th January, 2015 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
TM No. 09/13
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society 20.01.2015 Present: Counsel for the parties.
Clarifications made. Put up at 4.00 PM for orders.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi At 4.00 PM Present: None.
Vide my separate order of even date, the application moved by the plaintiff u/s 124 of TM Act is allowed and another application moved by the plaintiff u/s 340 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Put up on 09.03.2015 for further proceedings.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 20.01.2015 TM No. 09/13 Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society