*1* s.2373.10 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.2373 OF 2010 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2482 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.2373 OF 2010 Shrinivas Sugandhalaya. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Jaineel Overseas. ..Defendant .......... Ramesh Gajria i/b Gajria and Company for the Plaintiff. Suresh Punamiya, Proprietor of Defendant, present in person. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 30th September, 2010. P.C. 1 The matter was placed for ad-interim reliefs today. 2 On the earlier occasion, without notice to the Defendant and on being satisfied with the averments in the plaint, ad-interim order in terms of prayers (a) to (d) came to be granted. 3 After the Court Receiver acted upon the order and seized the goods lying at the Dronagiri, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), Mumbai, the Defendant has come forward to settle the claim. 4 Although office report shows that the Defendant is unserved, it is stated that the person present in the Court identifying himself as Suresh Punamiya is the sole proprietor of the Defendant. He states that the Defendant is a sole proprietary concern and nobody else other then him claims any relation with regard to the business activities of the Defendant. He alone is responsible inasmuch as the business of Defendant *2* s.2373.10 is that of an exporter particularly in goods like Agarbatti and incense sticks. He states that the export licence stands exclusively in his name and the consignment seized by the Receiver was identified belonging to the Defendant. However, upon the consignment being opened, he admits that 35 cartons carrying the goods identical to that of the Plaintiff have been seized. After this seizure he has come forward and stated that he is ready and willing to submit to a decree on admission. He has admitted that the Plaintiff is proprietor of the original artistic work described in Exhibit-B, so also, the trademark described in Exhibit-C thereof and the same exclusively belongs to the Plaintiff. 5 It is in such circumstances and stating that after full understanding the consequences of giving an undertaking to this Court and submitting to a decree that he has placed his signature on the consent terms and has remained present. He has produced his PAN card to identify himself and has stated that the export licence is issued in his name. He has no other licence nor does he carry on business save and except that of dealing and trading in Agarbatti and selling of incense sticks. He admits that certain cartons lying at JNPT belong to him and he would be dealing with them at his own risk and in any manner without holding the Plaintiff responsible for any action in that behalf. He states that the Court may proceed to pass a decree in terms of the consent terms and he would have no objection to the same. 6 After having carefully perused the consent terms and satisfying myself that the person present in the Court is alone connected with the Defendant as a sole proprietor, that I take the consent terms on record and mark the same as “X” for identification. It is stated by the Defendant that the address mentioned in the cause title is that of the premises belonging to his father Babulal Punamiya and presently, the *3* s.2373.10 Defendant carries on business from Santracruz, Mumbai, the details of which are mentioned below his signature on the consent terms. The undertakings of the Defendant in the consent terms are accepted. There will be an order in terms of the consent terms. The suit is, accordingly, disposed of. 7 In the light of disposal of the suit, the Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)