HT MEDIA LIMITED Vs. BRAINLINK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of the application filed by the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing the written statement. The suit has been instituted by 'HT Media Limited & another' against the defendants seeking a restraint on the defendants from infringing the trademark/domain name of the plaintiffs. A prayer was also made seeking a restraint on the defendants from pursuing the civil action before United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, particularly, in respect of the civil action titled Brainlink International, Inc. v. HT Media Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Action No. 1 20-cv-01279). A decree for rendition of accounts and damages has also been sought.

(2.) By way of the present application, the defendants have claimed that they have not been served with the summons in the present suit, having merely received an intimation about the suit having been filed and the order dtd. 28/4/2020 having been passed by the court, through email, in compliance of requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. It has been submitted that pursuant thereto, the defendants entered appearance and filed reply to the interim application filed by the plaintiffs and was under bona fide belief that the defendants were not required to file a written statement of defence until and unless served with the summons of the suit. It was also submitted that during this time, the entire world was affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. Even the Supreme Court of India took cognizance of the situation and extended the limitation. Hence, it was prayed that the delay in filing the written statement be condoned and the same be taken on record.

(3.) The plaintiffs have filed their reply to the said application seeking condonation of delay, opposing the same by submitting that the defendants had filed their written statement on 13/7/2021, i.e., nearly 441 days, after the ad-interim order was passed in this suit on 28/4/2020. It was submitted that no cogent reasons have been given to explain the delay and in the light of the fact that throughout, the defendants have appeared in the court, through their counsel, on various dates i.e., on 29/5/2020, 2/6/2020, 9/7/2020, 17/8/2020, 16/10/2020, 4/12/2020, 22/2/2021 and 6/7/2021, prior to the filing of the written statement, no ground was made out to condone the delay. Thus, it has been prayed that the application be dismissed and the right of the defendants to file the written statement be closed.