Yahoo! Inc. vs Sanjay V. Shah And Ors. on 12 January, 2006
8. In other words there is documentary evidence supported by affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Chartered Accountant, to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, but in the plaint the plaintiff has only prayed for passing of a decree for an amount of Rs. 5,05,000/-, as such in excess of that claim the plaintiff cannot claim any further amounts. The evidence led in any case is limited and a plaintiff cannot be permitted to exceed his prayer without following the due process of law. The plaint was amended and filed by the plaintiff in September 2003 wherein the amount of Rs. 5,05,000/- was only claimed. Affidavit of Sh. Anand Banerjee read in conjunction with the affidavit of Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, fully satisfied the ingredients of plaintiff's claim for damages to the above extent. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del); Adidas-Salomon A.G. and Ors. v. Jagdish Grover 2005 (3) PTC 308 (Del); Buffalo Networks Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Manish Jain and Anr. 2005 (30) PTC 242 (Del); L.T. Overseas Ltd. v. Guruji Trading Co. and Anr. CS(OS) No. 2711/1999 decided on 7th September, 2005 and P.N. Krishnamurthy v. CARE and Ors. to contend that the plaintiff is entitled to the compensatory damages because of the infringing of their trademark, and acts and commissions which violates the established rights of the plaintiff. It has been established on record and the evidence has gone unrebutted that claim of damages raised by the plaintiff to this extent is justifiable and can be granted by the Court.