The suit was decreed in terms of the parties’ executed settlement agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a commercial suit alleging, among other matters, trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement arising from the defendants’ use of marks and material said to be associated with the plaintiffs’ products.

During the proceedings, the parties resolved their dispute through a settlement agreement dated 8 September 2026.

They filed a joint memo of compromise dated 5 October 2026 asking the Court to decree the suit in accordance with that agreement.

The Court considered the settlement and joint memo.

Whether the suit should be decreed in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement and joint memo of compromise

Whether the connected applications should be closed following the compromise

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as invoked in the joint memo, provides for recording a lawful compromise and passing a decree in accordance with it; Section 151 CPC was also invoked as the Court’s source of inherent powers.

The judgment identifies no precedent or separate substantive rule, and does not decide the underlying trademark or copyright claims on their merits.

The parties represented that they had settled the dispute and jointly requested a decree on the settlement terms.

The Court accepted that request, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement agreement dated 8 September 2026, and made both the agreement and the joint memo dated 5 October 2026 part of the decree.

The connected applications were closed, with no order as to costs.