Once the dispute between the parties is amicably arrived at a decision and is settled through the Mediation and Conciliation Centers. The court fees which was earlier charged has to be refunded after such a settlement. The aforementioned has been relied upon by the Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v. Jitendra Goyal Owner and Proprietor of KLG Biotech [CS(COMM) 278/2020 & I.A. 6144/2020], which was decided upon by the single judge bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait on 16th July 2021.
The facts of the case are as follows. Plaintiff had prayed for an order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its proprietors, officers, servants, employees, dealers, agents, representatives, distributors and all other persons acting on behalf of defendants from marketing, supplying, selling and offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under the trade mark NISE, ULTRA NISE & OMEZA and/or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark, which is likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark and/or passing off its goods and business. A direction was also sought against the defendants to remove all listing of plaintiff’s trade mark NISE, ULTRA NISE & OMEZA made on B2B and B2C websites or portals that may be used by the defendants to promote its products bearing mark ULTRA NISE & OMEZA or any other identical or deceptively similar trade mark. Besides, plaintiff has also sought disclosure by defendant of total sale of products under plaintiff’s trade mark; delivery upon affidavit of defendant to destroy the offending material, products, labels etc in its possession and decree of damages to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,010/-.
A report from Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court dated 08.04.2021 has been received indicating that the parties have amicably resolved their disputes vide Settlement Agreement. Learned counsel for plaintiff affirms the factum of amicable resolution of dispute with defendant and submitted the terms of settlement.
The court considered the facts and arguments presented. It relied on several judgments including the Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24 and Munish Kalra Vs. Kiran Madan and Others 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8021 and declared the terms as lawfully correct. It declared that “Concurring with afore-noted decisions, the plaintiff is entitled to refund of entire court fees. Registry is directed to issue necessary certificate/authorization in favour of the plaintiff to seek refund before the appropriate authorities. The suit and pending application are accordingly disposed of.”