: 1 : IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.3553 OF 2006 MOTION NO.3553 OF 2006 MOTION NO.3553 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.2940 OF 2006 NO.2940 OF 2006 NO.2940 OF 2006 Raymond Limited .. Plaintiff. Versus Hemant Khandelwal & Ors. .. Defendants. Mr.Salil Shah i/b.Rajani & Asso. for plaintiff. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. : V.C.DAGA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 15th February, 2008. : 15th February, 2008. : 15th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This Court vide order dated 16th October, 2006, passed in Notice of Motion No.3553 of 2006 in Suit No.2940 of 2006 was pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) reading as under :- "that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants, by themselves, their servants, agents and employees be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any manner selling or exposing for sale or offering for sale any goods or advertising any goods in relation to the word / mark "Raymond" described at Exhibit-"E" hereto or any other mark / logo / device / get up identical with or : 2 : deceptively similar to the plaintiffs copyright including the copyright described at Exhibit-"D" hereto, so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s copyright in the original artistic works". 2. After grant of ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b), plaintiff was directed to serve the defendant under Order 39 Rule 3(a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, defendant was served. Acknowledgement evidencing service by speed post is placed on record. 3. The plaintiff submits that inspite of service of the order dated 16th October, 2006, there is no compliance of the same. The plaintiff has produced photograph of the name board of the shop appearing with the word "Raymond" cannot be said to be the compliance of the order dated 16th October, 2006, especially, when by an order dated 16th October, 2006, this court had, specifically, injuncted the defendant from using the word "Raymond" in any manner whatsoever. In this view of the matter,the plaintiff claims to have made out prima-facie case to seek appointment of the Court Receiver to execute the order dated 16th October, 2006. 4. Inspite of service, nobody is appearing on behalf of the defendant. : 3 : 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and having seen the documentary evidence produced on record, I am of the opinion that the order dated 16th October, 2006 has not been complied with. The plaintiff, in my opinion, has made out a prima-facie case for appointment of the Receiver. The Court Receiver is, therefore, appointed to execute the order of this Court dated 16th October, 2006. 6. In the result, motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (e) with no order as to costs. 7. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. (V.C. (V.C. (V.C. DAGA, J.) DAGA, J.) DAGA, J.)