EUREKA FORBES LIMITED Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 4600/2010 (under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC).

(2.) BY this order I propose to dispose of the captioned application. I may only notice the fact that at the proceedings held on 15.04.2010 it had been agreed before me by counsel on both sides that since the issue involved related to a particular advertisement issued by the defendant, the suit could perhaps be finally disposed of on the basis of documents and evidence by way of affidavits. Timeline were fixed for completion of pleadings, filing of affidavits by way of evidence and additional documents, if any. It had been made clear that in the event for some reasons the suit could not be disposed of then, the plaintiffs application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC ') shall be heard. It appears that even though pleadings have been completed and affidavits of evidence have been filed, the defendant has filed certain additional documents to which the plaintiffs counsel has an objection. Thus, it is agreed before me by both counsels that the captioned application be taken up for hearing based on the pleadings filed by both parties. The plaintiff agreed that the defendant could rely on the first set of documents filed on 03.05.2010.

(3.) THE gravemen of the plaintiffs case is that the impugned advertisement disparages the water purifiers manufactured by it, which are based on both Ultra Violet (UV) and Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology by comparing them with latest water purifier manufactured by the defendant. In other words, it is the plaintiffs case that the water purifiers shown in the advertisement, which are evidently based on UV or RO technology, have been depicted in a poor light as compared to the defendant 's product, which is, a combination of RO and UV technology, in addition to its apparent ability of carrying out ultra filtration (UF), and getting rid of turbidity and dissolved substances (in short TDS).