ALBERTO CULVER COMPANY Vs. R K VIJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the plaint a representation is made by the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are engaged in the business of similar/allied cognate goods as that of plaintiff, namely, the sale and trade of various types of cosmetics and personal care products. It is also stated in paragraph 19 that defendant No. 3 is marketing and selling the impugned goods through defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Delhi besides other parts of India, who are its dealers, distributors and stockists. In the light of the aforesaid statement, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have been arrayed as defendant in the present suit.

(2.) On service of summons, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have entered appearance and they have categorically stated in their written statement filed that the said two defendants, namely, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have nothing to do with the defendant No. 3. It is also stated that none of the aforesaid defendants have neither purchased the product of the plaintiff nor of the defendant No. 3. From the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, it is, therefore, established that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no business connection with defendant No.

(3.) That is the specific stand taken in the written statement. Except for making a bald statement of the aforesaid nature in the aforesaid paragraphs 18 and 19, there is no other supporting evidence placed on record to indicate that the said defendants had at any point of time any actual business between themselves. Therefore, in my considered opinion the stand taken by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in their written statement that there is no cause of action as against the said defendant is established. Upon going through the pleadings of the parties. I am of the considered opinion that there is no cause of action made out by the plaintiff in the present suit as against the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the plaint filed as against the said defendants seeking relief as against the said defendants stands rejected in view of applicability of provisions of Order VII Rule 11, CPC. The names of the said defendants are, therefore, struck out from the array of parties.