1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2593 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.1785 OF 2009 Asian Paints .. Plaintiff Versus Rajesh Singh Thakur .. Defendant Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with V.S.Bhagat, Dhiren Karania, Punit Jani i/b. G.S.Hegde & V.A.Bhagat for plaintiff Mr.Khajanchi with P.A.Saratkar i/b. SSP Legal for defendant. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9th September 2009. P.C.: 1] This matter was argued and reserved for orders for today. 2] However, at the last hearing it was indicated to the plaintiff as to whether the entire dispute can be settled amicably, if the defendant is ready and willing to stop the manufacturing of the paint brushes under the impugned label mark Aphcolite. The matter was reserved for orders only to facilitate the Counsel for defendant to seek instructions from the 2 defendant who is based at Nagpur. When the matter was placed today, the first defendant is present so also the representative of the plaintiff. The first defendant through his Counsel undertakes to this Court that he would stop manufacturing paint brushes under the impugned label mark Aphcolite so also market and sell the same in that name hereafter. However, he requests the Court to grant him reasonable time to dispose of the existing stock of finished goods. He states that he is facing difficulty inasmuch as his customers are spread over the different talukas in Nagpur district and, therefore, he would require time to make appropriate arrangements to intimate to them and dispose of the stocks. 3] The first defendant requests for time till 31st March 2010 to dispose of the existing stocks but he undertakes that he would stop manufacturing the paint brushes with impugned label mark with immediate effect. In other words, he would not manufacture paint brushes with the label mark Aphcolite. Mr.Bhagar for plaintiff states that it is not possible to agree for such a long duration and if the clientele is restricted to few talukas in Nagpur district, then, a time of two months would be enough. Having considered the entire matter and bearing in 3 mind that the defendant has remained present and has undertaken to the Court not to carry on manufacturing activities of the paint brush under the impugned label mark so also sell and market it any further, save and except the disposal of existing stock of finished goods, interest of justice would be sub-served if the defendant is granted time till 15th January 2010 to dispose of the existing stock of the finished goods viz., the paint brushes. 4] In these circumstances, the undertaking of the defendant recorded above is accepted. It is directed that all existing stocks of finished goods shall be disposed of by the defendant on or before 15th January 2010 and no further extension under any circumstances would be granted. Needless to clarify that the time to dispose of the stocks is granted only to enable the defendant to deal with the goods already manufactured and no permission is granted to manufacture the paint brushes under the impugned label mark hereafter. The time to dispose of the stocks shall immediately come to an end, if this Court notices any breach or violation of the order and direction of this Court. In those circumstances, in addition to proceeding for civil contempt, this Court would then, direct 4 the Court Receiver to take into his custody the stocks of finished goods and deal with them in accordance with law. Motion is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)