RAVI KUMAR BALI Vs. KALA TECH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment was reserved on 12. 2. 2008. By a precipe dated 29. 3. 2008 the defendants sought to tender an additional affidavit to bring on record further documents and to raise a new defence. This application was heard by me on 3. 6. 2008. I have rejected the application for reasons furnished later in this judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the defendants from making of, using, selling or distributing tamper proof locks/seals that fall within the scope of the claims of the plaintiffs Patent Bearing No. 162675 and patent of Addition No. 178879 so as to infringe the same and for delivery of for destruction any material infringing the said patents. The plaintiff has also sought damages. Defendant No. 2 carries on business as the sole proprietor in the firm name and style of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is the former employee of the plaintiff who has joined defendant No. 1/2 to assist him in carrying on his business. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 3 has conspired with defendant No. 1 in the manufacture and sale of the said locks and seals constituting an infringement of the plaintiff's patents.

(3.) MR. Tulzapurkar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants did not challenge the validity of the plaintiffs patents. It is unnecessary therefore to deal with the facts leading to the registration of the plaintiff's patent including those relating to the plaintiffs efforts in inventing the seals and locks and the importance thereof to the trade.