- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. jmi SUIT NO.1789 OF 2000. Sumangal Calendar Co. & Anr. ..Plaintiffs. vs. M/s.Garg & Co. ..Defendant. .... Mr.A.H.Kane, a/w. Mr.Hiren Kamod, i/b. H.W.Kane, for the Plaintiffs. Mr.J.S.Chandnani, for the Defendant. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 16TH FEBRUARY,2009 : 16TH FEBRUARY,2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for a perpetual order of injunction of this Court restraining the defendant from using in relation to his calendar, the word "KALNIRNAY" or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ mark "KALNIRNAY" so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendant’s calendars as and for the calendars of the plaintiffs or in any other manner whatsoever. The plaintiffs have also sought damages from the defendant for the acts of passing off or in the alternative to render a true and faithful account of profits by using the impugned mark "KALNIRNAY" and for a decree to pay to the plaintiffs such amount as may be found due on such account being taken. - 2 - 2. The learned Advocate for the defendant states that Shri Mahindra Pratap Garg, is present on behalf of the defendant. Upon instructions from Mr.Garg, the learned Advocates states that an interim order was passed in this matter as far back as on 2nd February 2001 restraining the defendant from using the word "KALNIRNAY" on any of his calendars. The defendant thereafter stopped using the mark "KALNIRNAY" on any of the calenders manufactured by them and started using the name "RASHTRIYA PANCHANG’. In fact since the last two years, he has completely stopped the business of manufacturing calendars. 3. The learned Advocates for the parties have prepared minutes of the order dated 16th February 2009 which are signed by the Advocates for the plaintiffs as well as for the defendant and the same are also signed by Mr.Garg, who is present in Court. The said minutes of the order are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. Mr.Garg, who is present in Court informs the Court that the defendant has no objection if a decree as sought in prayer clause (a) of the plaint is passed against him. He submits that the minutes of the order marked ‘X’, are executed and signed by him to this effect alongwith his Advocates. The plaintiffs have stated that in view of the defendant having agreed to a - 3 - decree being passed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint, the plaintiffs are not pressing for any cost/damages. 4. The suit is therefore, disposed of in terms of the minutes of the order marked ‘X’ and consequently, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a) with no order as to costs. 5. Accordingly, suit stands disposed of. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]