Voltas Limited vs M/S Shiv Shakti Enterprises & Ors.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 12.10.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010448682019
+ CS(COMM) 632/2019
VOLTAS LIMITED .....Plaintiff
versus
M/S SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES & ORS .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiff : Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Mr.
Shivansh Tiwari, Ms. Kruttika
Vijay and Ms. Geetanjali
Visvanathan, Advocates.
For Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 24279/2023
1. The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order
XIII-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(“ CPC ”), seeking Summary Judgment against Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5
in the present Suit.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 1 of 16

FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Mark ‘VOLTAS’
(“ Plaintiff’s Mark ”) in various Classes including Class 11 for air-
conditioners (“ ACs ”), ventilating plants, refrigerating, cold storage and
quick freezing, installation of lighting, heating, steam generating, etc.
3. The Plaintiff instituted the present Suit seeking, inter alia , a decree of
permanent injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 from
manufacturing, advertising, offering for sale and selling ACs under the
Plaintiff’s Mark, and further sought rendition of accounts, delivery up,
damages and costs.
4. This Court vide order dated 18.11.2019 granted an ex-parte ad interim
injunction against Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 restraining Defendant Nos. 3 and
5 from using the Plaintiff’s Mark or any other deceptively similar mark to
the Plaintiff’s Mark and further appointed a Local Commissioner (“ LC ”) to
visit the premises of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and seize the products
including ACs, stickers, cartons, remote controls, pamphlets, leaflets or any
written matter bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark.
5. Pursuant to order dated 18.11.2019, the learned LC visited the
premises of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 on 23.11.2019 and seized one visiting
card, two outdoor units of ACs, three boxes for outdoor units, one small box
with a motor, eleven remotes, all bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark.
6. This Court, vide order dated 29.08.2022, at the request of the Plaintiff
deleted Defendant No. 4 from the array of Parties and further confirmed the
ex-parte ad interim order dated 18.11.2019.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 2 of 16

7. Vide order dated 30.11.2023, this Court granted Defendant Nos. 3 and
5 the last opportunity to conclude the admission / denial of documents filed
by the Plaintiff (“ Plaintiff’s Documents ”), failing which the Plaintiff’s
Documents were to be deemed to have been admitted by Defendant Nos. 3
and 5.
8. On 12.01.2024, when the matter was listed before the learned Joint
Registrar (Judicial) for admission / denial of the Plaintiff’s Documents,
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 did not appear for carrying out admission / denial of
the Plaintiff’s Documents. Accordingly, in view of the order dated
30.11.2023, the admission / denial of Plaintiff’s Documents was recorded as
complete.
9. Vide order dated 10.02.2025, the Suit was decreed against Defendant
Nos. 1 and 2. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.09.2025, recording no
objection from Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and there being no contest, a decree
of permanent injunction was passed against the Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in
terms of Prayer clause Nos. (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint.
10. Insofar as the relief of damages and legal costs was concerned,
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 vide order dated 08.09.2025 were directed to file
their Value Added Tax (“ VAT ”) returns and Goods and Services Tax
(“ GST ”) returns for the period from 01.11.2016 to 30.11.2019 within four
weeks. The Plaintiff was also granted liberty to place on record its affidavit
on legal costs (“ Affidavit ”).
11. Subsequently, vide order dated 18.03.2026, learned Counsel for
Defendant No. 3, on instructions, submitted that pursuant to the show-cause
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 3 of 16

notice for cancellation of registration dated 31.12.2025 (“ SCN ”), the GST
registration of Defendant No. 5 had been suspended, as a result of which
Defendant No. 3 was unable to access the GST and VAT portal. Considering
the same, the directions contained in the order dated 08.09.2025 were put in
abeyance, with liberty to the Plaintiff to take other remedies, if any, in this
regard.
12. Thus, in view of the decree of permanent injunction already passed in
favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 vide order dated
08.09.2025, the only question that remains for consideration in the present
Application is the Plaintiff’s entitlement to damages and legal costs against
the Defendant Nos. 3 and 5.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF
13. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has made the following
submissions:
13.1 The Plaintiff is pressing the claim for damages and legal costs
against Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 on the basis of the findings
recorded by the LC in the report dated 03.12.2019 (“ LC Report ”),
the documents recovered during the execution of the Local
Commission and the investigation conducted by the Plaintiff.
13.2 The Plaintiff initially through an investigator purchased ACs from
Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 who revealed that they themselves procure
ACs from Defendant Nos. 3 and 5. The modus operandi of
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 involved assembling unbranded ACs and
thereafter upon request of the customer affixing any mark thereon,
including the Plaintiff’s Mark (“ Counterfeit ACs ”).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 4 of 16

13.3 The conduct of Defendant No. 3 and 5 was not confined to the sale
of Counterfeit ACs but also involved representing themselves as
the Plaintiff or its authorised service providers. Such conduct
adversely affected the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation,
particularly since the Counterfeit ACs were found to be defective.
The sale of Counterfeit ACs also posed risks to the safety of
consumers and, therefore, warranted the award of exemplary
damages.
13.4 The defence raised by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 that there were
dealing only in repairing and sale of scrapped / damaged electronic
goods such as Acs, that the letterheads and visiting cards were
from 2012 when Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were authorised dealers
of the Plaintiff, that the Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 never represented
themselves to be the Plaintiff or its authorised distributor, and that
there is no evidence of counterfeiting any products cannot be
believed in view of the findings in the LC Report, coupled with the
investigation carried out by the investigator hired by the Plaintiff.
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 had no real prospect of successfully
defending their claim and therefore, they agreed to suffer a decree
of permanent injunction in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c)
of the Plaint vide order dated 08.09.2025.
13.5 The LC, during the execution of the Local Commission at the
premises of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, found two outdoor units of
ACs, three boxes for outdoor units of ACs, one small box
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 5 of 16

containing a motor, eleven remote controls and one visiting card,
all bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark.
13.6 A letter issued by one Shri Durga Enterprises to Defendant Nos. 3
and 5 (“ Letter ”), recovered during the execution of the Local
Commission, also states that Shri Durga Enterprises had returned
63 ACs supplied by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 on account of they
being defective. The Letter demonstrates that Defendant Nos. 3
and 5 were supplying ACs to third parties. Although Defendant
Nos. 3 and 5 have contended that they were dealing in old,
defective and refurbished ACs, the documents recovered by the LC
show that the said products were Counterfeit ACs and not repaired
or refurbished products.
13.7 The invoices recovered by the learned LC (“ Invoices ”) show that
Defendant No. 3 had sold 42 indoor units and 42 outdoor units of
ACs for an amount of ₹4,59,375/-, disclose the sale of inverter
ACs for ₹2,38,281.25/- and the renting of ACs for ₹87,000/-. By
the quotations and correspondence issued on letterheads bearing
the Plaintiff’s Mark, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were representing
themselves as the Plaintiff or its authorised service providers,
despite having no authority to use the Plaintiff’s Mark.
13.8 Despite the last opportunity granted vide order dated 30.11.2023,
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 failed to file their affidavit of admission
and denial of the Plaintiff’s documents. Accordingly, vide order
dated 12.01.2024, the Plaintiff’s documents were deemed to have
been admitted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 6 of 16

13.9 Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 have also failed to produce their VAT and
GST returns for the period from 01.11.2016 to 30.11.2019 as
directed vide order dated 08.09.2025. In the absence of the VAT
and GST returns and other financial records of Defendant Nos. 3
and 5, the Plaintiff has quantified its claim for damages on the
basis of the documents recovered by the learned LC and the
investigation conducted by the Plaintiff.
13.10 The Invoices and other documents recovered during the execution
of the Local Commission represent only a limited portion of the
transactions undertaken by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5. Reliance was
placed on Aero Club v. Sahara Belts , 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7466
to submit that as the LC Report has not been challenged by any of
the defendants, the LC Report can be read in evidence in terms of
Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of CPC.
13.11 Reliance was placed on Rule 20 of the Intellectual Property Rights
Division Rules, 2022 (“ IPD Rules ”), to submit that a party seeking
damages or an account of profits is required to provide a
reasonable estimate of the amount claimed, supported by the
foundational facts, accounts, statements and other evidence
available on record and that the Plaintiff has furnished such an
estimate on the basis of the documents recovered by the LC. Since
the Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 had been carrying on their business by
representing themselves as the Plaintiff or its authorised service
providers, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim damages in respect of
the revenue generated through such activities.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 7 of 16

13.12 The Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were previously authorised dealers of
the Plaintiff and were, therefore, fully aware that they could not
use the Plaintiff’s Mark without authorisation. The continued use
of the Plaintiff’s Mark by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, including on
ACs, Invoices, quotations and letterheads bearing the Plaintiff’s
Mark, constituted deliberate and calculated infringement of the
Plaintiff’s rights in the Plaintiff’s Mark. Therefore, the conduct of
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 fell within the category of deliberate and
calculated infringement contemplated in Koninklijke Philips N.V.
& Anr. v. Amazestore & Ors. , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8198,
entitling the Plaintiff to costs and aggravated damages.
13.13 Reliance was placed on Aero Club ( supra ), to submit that where
the manufacture and sale of counterfeit products are established,
the Court may award damages having regard to the nature and
extent of infringement and the material available on record and on
H-D U.S.A., L.L.C. v. Vijaypal Dhyal, Owner/Proprietor of Red
Rose Industries , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2336, wherein damages
were awarded by adopting a rough and ready calculation.
13.14 The Counterfeit ACs sold and offered for sale by Defendant Nos. 3
and 5, posed significant health and safety risks to consumers. The
Counterfeit ACs were likely to have compromised electrical
components, increasing the risk of electrical fires, blasts, short
circuits, and electric shocks. Additionally, the Counterfeit ACs
may also have had impaired functionality, resulting in inadequate
cooling, increased energy consumption, and potential exposure to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 8 of 16

refrigerant leaks. Therefore, the sale of Counterfeit ACs under the
guise of Counterfeit ACs accruing directly from the Plaintiff, is not
only misleading but also dangerously irresponsible. The actions of
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, thus, irreparably harmed the Plaintiff’s
goodwill and reputation. This Court in Johnson & Johnson v.
Pritamdas Arora T/A Medserve , (2025) 1 HCC (Del) 489,
awarded exemplary damages amounting to ₹1 Crore on account of
the defendants’ deliberate, conscious and wilful infringement of
plaintiff’s rights through sale of counterfeit medicines therein.
Owing to the gravity of infringement and the associated risks and
consequences, the Plaintiff is also entitled to such exemplary
damages, as per the discretion of this Court.
13.15 In the present case, taking into account the limited evidence as
collated by the learned LC, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 have made the
following illegal profits:
S. No. Particulars Illegal Profits
1. Sale of ACs Indoor and Outdoor Unit of
INR 4,59,375
ACs
2. Sale of Invertor ACs INR 2,38,281.25
3. Renting of ACs on Voltas Letter Head INR 87,000
4. Sale of Defective ACs which were
Exemplary Punitive
returned, which amounts to loss of
damages as per
reputation for Plaintiff
discretion of court.
5. Providing quotation on Voltas Letter heads
Exemplary Punitive
and hence, passing off themselves as
damages as per
VOLTAS/authorised dealers of Voltas
discretion of court.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 9 of 16

6. Exemplary damages on account of gravity
Exemplary Punitive
of infringement.
damages as per
discretion of court.
Total INR 7,84,656.25/- +
Legal Costs of INR
8,80,282/- +
Exemplary Punitive
Damages
13.16 Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks from Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 legal
costs of ₹8,80,282/- as per the Affidavit and damages as per Rule
20 of the IPD Rules, taking into account the lost profits suffered by
the Plaintiff, profits earned by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5, quantum of
income which the Plaintiff may have earned through royalties /
license fees, had the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark been duly
authorised, the duration of infringement, degree of intention /
neglect underlying the infringement and conduct of Defendant No.
3 and 5 to mitigate the damages being incurred by the Plaintiff.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Nos. 3 and 5
14. Vide Reply filed to the present Application, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5
have submitted as under:
14.1. The documents placed on record by the Plaintiff do not indicate
the sale of Counterfeit Products by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5. The
learned LC has also not found any Counterfeit Product at the
premises of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and that all the products found
at the premises of the Defendant were original product.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 10 of 16

14.2. The Letter whereby 63 units of ACs are returned being defective,
does not in any manner indicate that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 sold
the Counterfeit Products. As Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 deal in
scrapped / damaged electronic goods and the return of old and
defective ACs bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark does not attribute that
Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were dealing in the Counterfeit Products.
14.3. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were engaged in dealing with scrapped
and damaged products, including products sold as scrap by
Original Equipment Manufacturers (“ OEMs ”), distributors and
authorised service centres. Such products, including damaged and
mismatched products, were sold at lower prices with limited profit
margins. The indoor and outdoor units of ACs sold to one Satish
Enterprises on 04.04.2018 were procured from various OEMs and
distributors and were sold and invoiced separately in the same
manner in which they were received.
14.4. The visiting card bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark was only intended to
indicate that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were dealing in products of
various companies, including the Plaintiff. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5
were an authorised service centre of the Plaintiff until 2012, during
which period certain letterheads bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark were
printed. However, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 had never represented
themselves as the Plaintiff or its authorised user or distributor.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
15. This Court, vide order dated 08.09.2025, has already passed a decree
of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 11 of 16

Nos. 3 and 5 in terms of Prayer clause Nos. (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint.
Therefore, the only issue which remains for consideration in the present
Application is whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages and legal costs
against Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 and, if so, the quantum thereof.
16. In the present case, the Plaintiff has placed reliance upon the LC
Report, the Invoices and other documents recovered during the execution of
the Local Commission to substantiate its claim for damages. It is submitted
on behalf of the Plaintiff that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were the erstwhile
service centre of the Plaintiff until 2012, and that despite termination of the
agreement, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 continued to mislead consumers by
falsely representing themselves as an authorised service centre of the
Plaintiff.
17. The LC Report records that two outdoor units and three boxes for
outdoor units of ACs, one box containing a motor, eleven remote controls
and a visiting card, all bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark were found at the
premises of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5. The quotation dated 27.06.2018 for
sale of 500 LED TV 32 at the rate of ₹7000 each, amounting to ₹35,00,000/-
shows that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were using the Plaintiff’s Mark in
connection with their business activities, even after 2012.
18. It is also relevant that vide order dated 30.11.2023, Defendant Nos. 3
and 5 were granted the last opportunity to conclude the admission / denial of
the Plaintiff’s Documents, failing which the Plaintiff’s Documents were to
be deemed to have been admitted. As Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 did not appear
before the learned Joint Registrar on 12.01.2024 for carrying out admission /
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 12 of 16

denial of the Plaintiff’s Documents, the admission / denial of the Plaintiff’s
Documents was recorded as complete.
19. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Defendant Nos. 3 and
5 had previously operated as an authorised service centre of the Plaintiff and
that the agreement governing such association was terminated in 2012. It
was contended that any transaction undertaken by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in
respect of products bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark subsequent to the
termination of the said agreement constituted unauthorised use of the
Plaintiff’s Mark. Consequently, the profits derived from such transactions
constituted profits earned through infringement of the Plaintiff’s Mark,
resulting in a corresponding loss of profits to the Plaintiff.
20. The Plaintiff has quantified its claim for damages at ₹7,84,656.25/- on
the basis of the Invoices recovered by the LC. However, the aggregate value
of the transactions reflected in the Invoices cannot, by itself, be equated with
the profits earned by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 have
contended that they dealt in old, defective and scrapped ACs. The Plaintiff
has not placed on record any computation of the profits earned by Defendant
Nos. 3 and 5 after accounting for the costs of procurement, repair or
refurbishment of such ACs, including their scrap value, nor any computation
of the loss suffered by the Plaintiff on account of the aforesaid transactions.
Accordingly, the entire sum of ₹7,84,656.25/- cannot be awarded as
damages solely on the ground that the Invoices reflect transactions of that
value.
21. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were previously associated with the Plaintiff
as an authorised service centre and were, therefore, aware of the Plaintiff’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 13 of 16

rights in the Plaintiff’s Mark. Notwithstanding the termination of the said
arrangement, they continued to use the Plaintiff’s Mark on quotations and
correspondence relating to their business activities. Such continued and
unauthorised use clearly demonstrates their intention to represent themselves
as an authorised service centre of the Plaintiff and to derive benefit from the
goodwill and reputation associated with the Plaintiff’s Mark. In these
circumstances, the use of the Plaintiff’s Mark by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5
cannot be regarded as innocent.
22. Rule 20 of the IPD Rules enumerates the factors to be taken into
account in determining the quantum of damages, including the loss of profits
suffered by the injured party; the profits earned by the infringing party; the
income that the injured party could have earned by way of royalties or
licence fees; the duration of the infringement; the degree of intention or
neglect underlying the infringement; and the conduct of the infringing party
in mitigating the damages suffered by the injured party.
23. Having regard to the material recovered by the LC, including the
quotations and correspondence bearing the Plaintiff’s Mark, the continued
use of the Plaintiff’s Mark by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 after 2012, and their
prior association with the Plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the Plaintiff
is entitled to damages.
24. Although the precise quantum of profits earned by Defendant Nos. 3
and 5 or the loss suffered by the Plaintiff cannot be ascertained from the
material on record, the value of the transactions reflected in the Invoices, the
duration of the unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s Mark and the degree of
intention underlying the infringement are relevant considerations under Rule
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 14 of 16

20 of the IPD Rules. Upon consideration of these factors, this Court deems it
appropriate to award damages of ₹5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff.
25. Insofar as the Plaintiff’s reliance on Johnson & Johnson ( supra ) in
support of its claim for exemplary damages is concerned, the said judgment
pertained to the sale of counterfeit surgical devices found to be non-sterile
and contaminated, as well as expired surgical devices repackaged with
falsified expiry dates.
26. In the present case, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 have contended that the
documents filed by the Plaintiff do not establish that they sold Counterfeit
Products and no Counterfeit Products were found at their premises as all the
products found there were original since they deal in scrapped and damaged
electronic goods, and the return of old and defective ACs bearing the
Plaintiff’s Mark does not establish that they dealt in Counterfeit Products.
Accordingly, no case is made out for exemplary damages against Defendant
Nos. 3 and 5.
27. The Plaintiff has further claimed legal costs of ₹8,80,282/- and, in
support thereof, has filed the Affidavit together with invoices relating to
advocates’ professional fees, expenses incurred towards investigation and
procurement of ACs, Court Fees, fees paid to the LC and other expenses
incurred in connection with the present Suit.
28. The Plaintiff has incurred ₹2,07,500/- towards Court Fees and
₹1,00,000/- towards fees paid to the LC. The present Suit was initially
instituted against five defendants. Defendant No. 4 was subsequently deleted
from the array of Parties vide order dated 29.08.2022, and the Suit has
already been decreed against Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who had procured the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 15 of 16

Counterfeit ACs from Defendant Nos. 3 and 5. The learned LC was
appointed to visit the premises of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 only and
consequently, the expenses incurred towards the Local Commission are
directly attributable to Defendant Nos. 3 and 5.
29. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and the relief granted
to the Plaintiff, this Court deems it appropriate to award costs of ₹5,07,500/-
to the Plaintiff comprising ₹2,07,500/- towards Court Fees and ₹1,00,000/-
towards fees paid to the learned LC and ₹2,00,000/- towards the reasonable
fees that the Plaintiff has incurred towards its Counsel’s professional fees to
be payable by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5.
30. Accordingly, the present Application is disposed of with the aforesaid
directions.
CS(COMM) 632/2019
31. Further to the order dated 08.09.2025 whereby a decree of permanent
injunction has been passed against Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in terms of
Prayer clause Nos. (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint, in view of the above order
passed in I.A. 24279/2023, Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 are jointly and severally
liable to pay ₹5,00,000/- towards damages and ₹5,07,500/- towards legal
costs to the Plaintiff within four weeks from the passing of this Order.
32. Let the Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
33. The Suit along with all pending Applications, if any, stand finally
disposed of.
TEJAS KARIA, J
NOVEMBER 6, 2026
HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
18:04:20
CS(COMM) 632/2019 Page 16 of 16