NEEL ELECTRO TECHNIQUES Vs. NEELKANTH POWER SOLUTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, this Appeal has been specially assigned to the Division Bench presided over by one of us (A.S. Oka,J.). By this appeal, the appellants who are the original appellants have taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 24th June 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge on the Notice of Motion No. 54 of 2012 in a suit No. 55 of 2012.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit No. 55 of 2012 before the learned Single Judge for injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner directly or indirectly using the mark "Neel" or "Neelkanth" (Exhibits A and S respectively to the plaint) and its domain name www neelpower com or any mark, device, logo, label etc which is similar and/or deceptively similar to the registered mark of the appellant bearing registration No. 1075665. Various other reliefs were claimed including the relief of damages. Temporary injunction was claimed by filing the aforesaid Notice of Motion seeking relief of temporary injunction in terms of the final relief.

(3.) The first appellant-M/s. Neel Electro Techniques is a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The second appellant M/s. Neel Controls is also a partnership firm duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is claimed in the plaint that though the first appellant-firm was established on 11th February 1980 by one Shri Ravindra Gamanlal Mehta (third appellant), initially he was not a partner of the said firm. Initially his mother and real brother Hemant were the partners. The fourth and fifth appellants are the sons of the third appellant-Ravindra. It is alleged that as the first appellant was doing the business solely on expertise and knowledge of the third appellant, till he became the partner of the first appellant, he was paid technical advice fees. The third appellant became a partner of the first appellant on 17th January 1981. It is alleged that after 1981, the partners of the first appellant were changed from time to time. It is claimed that on the date of institution of the suit, the third appellant, fifth appellant and the said Hemant are the partners of the firm having 40%, 20% and 40% shares respectively.