VENNILA CLOTHING COMPANY Vs. ARRS SILKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order will govern the aforesaid four interlocutory applications.

(2.) O.A.Nos.992 and 993 of 2017 are interlocutory applications taken out by plaintiffs in the main suit in which common interim orders were granted on 09.10.2017 and the same are operating. A.Nos.8280 of 2017 and 7224 of 2018 have been taken out for vacating the aforesaid common interim orders dated 09.10.2017. In other words, there are two injunction applications and two vacate injunction applications constituting these four interlocutory applications which shall stand disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity, O.A.Nos.992 and 993 of 2017 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'injunction applications' and A.Nos.8280 of 2017 and 7224 of 2018 shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as 'vacate injunction applications'.

(3.) There are two plaintiffs in the main suit. First plaintiff is a partnership firm and second plaintiff is a natural person who is a partner in first plaintiff partnership firm. There are three defendants in the main suit. First defendant is a partnership firm and second defendant is a natural person, who is a partner in the first defendant partnership firm. Third defendant has been described as 'M/s.Ravirams, A Proprietary Concern, Proprietor S.Ravichandran' in the short cause title, therefore for all practical purposes, third defendant is one S.Ravichandran carrying on business in the name and style 'Ravirams' as its sole proprietor. To be noted, as it is the stated position of defendants that S.Ravichandran is carrying on business in the name and style 'Ravirams' as its sole proprietor, 'Ravirams' being prefixed with 'M/s' is clearly incorrect as it is also the stated position of defendants that 'Ravirams' is not a compendious name.