0% found this document useful (0 votes)
80 views23 pagesAppl. U O 12 R 6 DKR vs. Miraz Securitas Pvt. Ltd.
Application Under Order 12 Rule 6
Uploaded by
gaurishyam18Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
80 views23 pagesAppl. U O 12 R 6 DKR vs. Miraz Securitas Pvt. Ltd.
Application Under Order 12 Rule 6
Uploaded by
gaurishyam18Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 23
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AJAY GARG,
LD. A.D.J-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SUIT NO. CS(COM)/ 506 /2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Dev Karan Rajput vee PLAINTIFF
VERSUS,
Mis Miraz Securitas Pvt. Ltd sss DEFENDANT
APPLICATION ON BEI F_OF PL: UNDER _ORDER_1:
RULE 6 READ WITH SECTION 151 C.P.C.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the above noted suit is pending for adjudication before this
Hon’ble Court and the same is fixed for 19.04.2022.
2. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and
mandatory injunction before this Hon’ble Court and claimed a
decree of permanent and mandatory injunction thereby restraining
the defendants, their agents, servants, assignees, representatives,
associates from use and possess of the said trademark MIRAZ as
the plaintiff is the inventor, designer and creator of the said
trademark and is using the same since 1995.
3. That the contention and grounds of the plaintiff in the present suit
are that the plaintiff is the founder, creator, designer, superior user
and absolute owner of the said trademark MIRAZ. In para no. 1.6 of his written Statement, the defendant has
admitted that the said trademark was/is belongs to the plaintiff,
the said para read as ‘it would be appropriate to place an
important fact to before the Hon'ble Court, which is that at the
time when the plaintiff left the defendant company in year 2009, it
was clearly understood that the plaintiff would be given a share of
the clients of the defendant company to operate his own
independent business and, in return for this arrangement, the
defendant would retain the trademark MIRAZ, The mutual
agreement between the parties therefore was that the plaintiff
would thence onward not use the word MIRAZ in
and the defendant would be exch admission under order 12 rule 6 C.P.C., in instant case it is a clear
admission on the part of defendant in the pleadings and also in the
documents filed by the parties. The present case is a fit case for
passing a decree in favour of plaintiff on the basis of admission
made by the defendant.
PRAYER:
It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that in the:
and circumstances as submitted hereinabove, this Hon’ble court 1
Kindly be allow the present application of the plaintiff a
decree of permanent and mandatory injunction on the
admission of the defendant in interest of justice. IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SH. AJAY GARG,
LD. A.D.J-01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
SUIT NO. CS(COMY 506 /2019
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Dev Karan Rajput ve PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
Mis Miraz Securitas Pvt. Ltd .. DEFENDANT
AFFIDAVIT
|, Dev Karan Rajput S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh, address: 38°
Mohammadput, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi-110066,
solemnly affirm and declare as under: - — ORDINARYIURGENTH
AHLMAD,
+ PATE OF ORDER : 11.05.2021
DASTI
Sh SAN IAIN
Commercial Cour-02 Bisinct Judge
Room No. 24
Patiala tiouse Courts
New Dethi
DATE OF FILING OF PF. :27.07.2021
DATE OF ISSUE : 27,07.2021
NO. OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXED: c/a
NEXT DATE OF HEARING : 02. 08.2021
Summons for Settlement of Issues in a Suit Relatin;
(Uis 6 of the Commereial Courts,
high Courts Ordinance, 2015,
IN THE COUR’
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-03 ROOM NO. 24, NE
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW
CASE NO. Cs (COMM,):
‘Commercial Division an
mending Order V, Rule I of
4177/2021
Miraz Securitas Pvt, Ltd,
Against
Dev Karan Rajput
To
Dev Karan Rajput
Director of
Miraz Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd,
38, Mohammadpur Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi- 110066
Code of Civil Procedure,
SH. SANJIV JAIN, DISTRICT JUDGE
fhnexure- As
CIVIL NAZIR/S.H.0,
NAME OF PROCESS.
NUMBER OF PROCESS,
DATE OF RETURN,
2 to Commercial Dispute
1d Commercial Appellate Dit
1908)
n of
-W DELHI DISTRICT,
DELHI
Plaintiff
Defendant CNAME ee
COMPLAINANT ETC
*S/QW/ODIO
ADDRESS IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT:
CS (COMM No. 12021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Miraz Securitas Pvt. Ltd, + Plaintif
VERSUS
‘Mr. Dev Karan Rajput
«+. Defendant IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT JUDGE (COMM), i)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) No.___/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:
Miraz Securitas Pvt. Ltd,
42, Community Centre, 3" Floor,
Nessa hose ane, ine
‘New Delhi— oo Plant
‘VERSUS
‘Mr. Dev Karan Rajput
Director of
‘MIS, Miraz Facility Management Services Pvt. Ltd.
38, Mohammadpur 2) In the above circumstances, on 05.03.2021 the Plaintiff herein, being the Counter-
Claimant in Counter Claim No, 11/2020, withdrew the said Counter Claim with liberty to
file aftesh, and the Hon’ble Court was pleaséd to pass, intertlia, the following order:
“Ld. Counsel for Counter Claimant has given statement to withdraw this Counter Claim
‘with liberty to file afresh appropriately, of cotrse subject 10 lav of limitation and prays
for refund of Court fees, full or part as permissible tn law...
As prayed, the Counter Claim is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for.”
‘True copies of orders dated 11.01.2021 and-05,03.2021 passed by the Hon’ ble Court have
‘been filed as a document under the List of Documents herewith,
‘THE PLAINTIFF
3) The Plaintiff is @ company inconporated under the laws of Inia on 03.07.1995 as ‘Mraz
Detective and Security Services Pvt. Ltd.” On 22.02:2018, the name of the Plaintiff
‘company was changed to ‘Miraz Securitas Pvt, Ltd.’ and a certificate of incorporation
‘pursuant fo name change was issued by te Rest oF Coimpanis. TeDat he
4
@ individuals. The Defendant is also a former director of the Plaintiff company, and he
resigned from the said company in the year 2009.
‘THE PLAINTIFF'S TRADE MARK BEING SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT
6) The Plaintiff has been using the trade mark MIRAZ continuously since 01.01.1996 in
respect of its above-mentioned services. Having been engaged in this business for over
‘twenty five (25) years and having used the trade mark in a widespread geographical area
in and around the Nationat Capital Regi, the Plaintiff bas gamered an envisble
reputation for high quality services. | @ 6
11) Theannual revenue generated under the Plaintiff's trade mark MIRAZ from 2014 to 2019
isasunder:
Year INR (Crores)
2014-15 1168
2015-16 TH
2016-17 20.03
BITS 26.06
2018-19 3153
12) The Plaintiff has expended large sums of money in extensive and regular advertisement
of their aforementioned services under the trade mark MIRAZ. By way of example, the
Plaintiff's advettising expenditure from 2014 to 2019 is set out below:
Yar TNR
201A 30,000.00
ISG 5,000.00
‘BOIEAT 7, 05,000.00 a
2017-18 1,50,000.00 r
5 a e Pe eee | Defendant's impugned mark
M
1
R.
A
Z
15) The Plaintiff further discovered that the Defendant had obtained registration of a company
fat the Registrar of Companies, Delhi under the name: ‘Misa Facility Management
Services Pvt. Ltd.’ on 21.04.2009. A true copy of the Company Master Data relating to
this company, from the online record of the Registrar of Companies fis been filed as «
document.
16) ‘it further came to the Plaintiffs attention that te aforementioned company Mirez Facility
“Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (f which the Defendant i ditest), had filed en
se 18)
1»)
oi “aaa
hupsi/wwwamirerfacility.cory as well as on Facebook at the URI.
hitps://www. facebook.com/MirazFacilityManagementServicesPrivateLtd, amongst other
social medi channels, Screenshots of the Defendant's website and Facebook page
