Delhi District CourtTm No. 09/13 vs Satya Sai Cancer Society on 4 September, 2015IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
            ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE­02 (SOUTH­EAST),
                     SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

TM No. 09/13
Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd.
                                                          ..... Plaintiff
Vs.


Satya Sai Cancer Society
                                                          .....   Defendant
                                  And


TM No. 13/15
Satya Sai Cancer Society
                                                          ..... Plaintiff


                Vs.


Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd.
                                                          ..... Defendant


ORDER1.              Vide this common order I shall dispose of an application

           u/o 39 Rule 1 and 2CPCmoved by Metro Institutes of Medical

           Sciences P. Ltd. in the case bearing TM No. 09/13 and another

           application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 moved by Satya Sai Cancer Society

           in case bearing No. TM No. 13/15.TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                        Page No. 1 of 192.                Brief facts necessary for disposal of the present

         applications are that the plaintiff "Metro Institutes of Medical

         Sciences P. Ltd." (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) has filed a suit

         for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant "Satya Sai Cancer

         Society" (hereinafter referred to as defendant) from infringing the

         trade mark, rendition of account and delivery up etc. The case of the

         plaintiff as set up in the plaint in case TM No. 09/13 titled as "Metro

         Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer Society" is

         that it has been using the trade name "Metro" for providing medical

         and hospital services since 1997. It has obtained the registration of

         the trade marks "Metro", "Metro Heart Institute" and "Metro

         Hospital" vide registration No. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501 dated

         20.04.2007 respectively. The medical and hospital services provided

         under the trade name "Metro" by the plaintiff enjoys formidable

         goodwill and reputation and the trade name "Metro" has acquired

         secondary significance as symbol of highest standard quality of

         services being offered by the plaintiff. Due to exclusive and extensive

         use of the trade name "Metro" for medical services, the plaintiff is

         claiming right in Metro for medical and hospital services alone.3.                It is further averred that during a random search on the

         Internet the plaintiff came to know about the defendant's hospital

         namely "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research Centre" andTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                         Page No. 2 of 19accordingly issued a legal notice dated 23.09.2011 to which no reply

        was received from the defendant.           The plaintiff believed that

        defendant had stopped the use of the Trade Mark "Metro" of the

        plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter came to know that defendant had

        applied and obtained registration of the trade mark "Metro Hospital"under number 1591081 dated 16.08.2007 and Metro Hospital and

        Cancer Research Centre" under number 1591082 dated 16.08.2007.

        The plaintiff issued another legal notice dated 20.07.2013 through the

        counsel for the defendant and the said notice has not been replied and

        the defendant continues to use the impugned trade mark in violation

        of the plaintiff's registered trade marks. It is further averred that when

        the plaintiff did not receive any response to the above legal notices,

        plaintiff caused personal visit at Jabalpur through one of its

        representative on 09.10.2013 who met the chairman of the hospital

        and confirmed about receiving the legal notices, but the defendant

        refused to comply the terms of the legal notice. It is stated that the

        impugned trade marks of the defendant are deceptively similar to the

        plaintiff's trade mark "Metro". It is further averred that plaintiff's

        annual revenues is to the tune of Rs.87 crores and it incurred Rs.19

        lacs in promoting the hospital under the mark "Metro" during the

        financial year 2005­06 and the conduct of the defendant in adopting

        the impugned marks is fraudulent, dishonest, unethical and unlawful.TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                         Page No. 3 of 19It is further averred that the use of trade mark "Metro" by the

         defendant constitutes infringement of plaintiff's registered trade mark

         "Metro" and the use of impugned trade marks by the defendant is

         aimed at encashing upon the image and goodwill acquired by the

         plaintiff. Hence, the present suit.4.                The plaintiff has prayed for (i) decree of permanent

         injunction to restrain the defendant, its directors, partner, proprietors,

         business franchisees, distributors, dealers etc., from using the trade

         mark "Metro" of the plaintiff in respect of medical services or any

         other trade mark which is deceptively similar thereto, (ii) decree of

         delivery up of all the infringing material and rendition of accounts of

         profits.5.                Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed an

         application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2CPC, which is under disposal praying

         for the same relief during the pendency of the suit.6.                The defendant filed the written statement and contended

         that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit as the

         defendant is also a registered proprietor and there is no infringement

         of plaintiff's trade name. It is stated that defendant has been a lawful

         registered owner of its trade mark since 2007 and present suit filed in

         the year 2013 is barred due to acquiescence. The present suit has been

         filed by the plaintiff to harass the defendant and to adversely impactTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                          Page No. 4 of 19the reputation and market share of the defendant. It is further averred

        that plaintiff and defendant operates in different states and the areas of

        their practice do not over lap. It is further averred that defendant is

        operating in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh only and there is no instance

        of infringement over the plaintiff's trade mark which though

        phonetically similar are very distinct and different than that of the

        defendant. The defendant is a NGO and registered under theSocieties

        Registration Actand it has multi specialty hospital which provides

        free education and hospital facilities. It is stated that the defendant's

        hospital has been operational since 2007 and takes care of critical care

        and trauma centre and has also undertaken to provide free OPD to the

        poorest of the society. It is further averred that defendant received

        legal notices dated 23.09.2011 and 20.07.2013 and did not reply the

        same because the notices were baseless and defendant was using its

        lawful trade mark. The plaintiff only operates in northern state of the

        country whereas the defendant operates in central part of Madhya

        Pradesh and enjoys lawful right over its registered trade mark. Hence,

        there is no question of any infringement of the trade mark of the

        plaintiff and any injury when the plaintiff has no hospital in the

        central India and mainly operates in the Northern India. The other

        contents of the plaint are stated to be wrong and denied.              The

        defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as of the interimTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                         Page No. 5 of 19application.7.                  The brief facts of the case filed by the defendant in case

         TM No. 13/15 titled as "Satya Sai Cancer Society Vs. Metro Institutes

         of Medical Sciences P. Ltd." are that it has got registered trade mark

         in the name of "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and Cancer

         Research Center" vide registration no. 1591081 and 1591082 on

         16.08.2007 and same is being continuously used since April, 2006. It

         is averred that the trade mark "Metro" used by the plaintiff is likely to

         cause confusion in the minds of the public as the trade mark of the

         plaintiff is deceptively similar and the plaintiff should be restrained

         from expending their presence beyond UP or Delhi.             Hence, the

         defendant has prayed for permanent injunction thereby restraining the

         plaintiff from using the Metro Hospital as a trade mark or any other

         trade mark which is deceptively similar thereto and also seeks decree

         of rendition of accounts of profits and delivery of infringement

         material.8.                  In the application, u/o 39 rule 1 &2CPCmoved by the

         defendant similar relief has been sought during the pendency of the

         suit.9.                  The plaintiff i.e. Metro Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt.Ltd. filed written statement contending that it is the registered owner

         of the trade mark "Metro" and has been using the same since 1997TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                           Page No. 6 of 19whereas the defendant is registered on 16.08.2007. It is the prior user

          and also prior registered of the mark "Metro" and therefore defendant

          has no right to interfere or restrain the plaintiff from using the mark

          'Metro' in any manner. The suit has been filed as a counter blast to the

          suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant and same is liable to be

          dismissedu/s 10of CPC. The plaintiff has raised other contentions as

          averred in the suit filed by it as mentioned herein above.10.               I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused

          the record carefully.11.               In order to succeed for the relief of grant of temporary

          injunction, the applicant is required to establish three ingredients i.e.(i) a prima facie case for infringement in its favour, (ii) balance of

          convenience and (iii) irreparable loss and injury which cannot be

          compensated in terms of money, if the injunction is not granted.12.               It is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the registered

          proprietor of the trade marks "Metro", "Metro Heart Institute" and

          "Metro Hospital" vide registration No. 1551499, 1551500 and 1551501

          respectively, all dated 20.04.2007 under Class 42. The plaintiff has

          claimed that it has been offering medical and hospital services under

          the trade mark "Metro" in India since 1997. In support of its claim, the

          plaintiff has placed on record a number of documents viz. copy of

          various newspaper articles, magazine articles, copy of various lettersTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                            Page No. 7 of 19of empanelment issued by various institutions, promotional material

          such as catalogs, brochures, copy of invoices raised by the plaintiff

          for sale of medical services, copy of invoices of advertisement, copy

          of advertisement etc, which go to show that the plaintiff has been

          extensively using the trade mark "Metro" since 1997. The plaintiff has

          also claimed to have spent huge amount on the advertisement under

          the trade name "Metro" for its hospital and medical services. It is also

          undisputed fact that defendant has got the registration of the

          impugned trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and

          Cancer Research Centre" under registration No. 1591081 and 1591082,

          both dated 16.08.2007.13.               From the aforesaid factual matrix, it has emerged out that

          the plaintiff is not only the registered proprietor of the trade mark

          "Metro" but is also prior in use of the trade mark "Metro" since 1997.

          While the defendant has claimed to be in use of the impugned trade

          marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research

          Centre" since the year 2006. It may be noted here that the trade mark

          "Metro Hospital" of the plaintiff is valid only in Delhi as there is

          disclaimer in this regard in the registration certificate, however the

          other two trade marks of the plaintiff "Metro" and "Metro Heart

          Institute" are valid throughout India and there is no disclaimer in

          respect of other two trade marks of the plaintiff.TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                          Page No. 8 of 1914.               The plaintiff has claimed that impugned trade marks of

          the defendant are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Though,

          in the written statement, the defendant has denied the same but this

          denial is of no consequence because the impugned trade marks of the

          defendant are phonetically similar to that of the plaintiff which fact

          has also been admitted by the defendant in the written statement. Not

          only phonetically but visually also, the impugned trade mark of the

          defendant, prima facie, appears to be deceptively similar to the

          registered trade mark of the plaintiff as the word "Metro" is

          prominent in the registered trade mark of the plaintiff as well as in the

          impugned trade mark of the defendant. The defendant itself has

          admitted the similarity of its trade marks to that of the plaintiff in the

          suit filed by it against the plaintiff bearing TM No. 13/15 seeking

          injunction on the ground of deceptively similarity between the trade

          marks of the plaintiff and defendant.15.               The plaintiff has claimed that it is the prior user and prior

          registered proprietor of trade name "Metro" and hence impugned

          registrations could not have been granted by the Trade Mark Registry

          in favour of the defendant and adoption of the impugned trade mark

          by the defendant infringes the registered trade mark of the plaintiff

          and therefore defendant is liable to be injuncted from using the

          impugned trade mark.TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                           Page No. 9 of 1916.                From the aforesaid narration of facts and documents

          placed on record, though the plaintiff appears to have acquired

          goodwill and reputation under the trade mark "Metro" due to its

          continuous use since 1997 and apparently the defendant is subsequent

          user of the trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and

          Cancer Research Centre" since 2006. But the question which arises

          for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim

          injunction because admittedly the plaintiff came to know about the

          use of impugned trade mark by the defendant in the year 2011 and the

          present suit has been filed in the year 2013. As such, there is delay of

          about 2 years by the plaintiff in approaching the court seeking

          injunction against the defendant. It has to be seen as to whether the

          delay and acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff in approaching the

          court to injunct the defendant from using the impugned trade mark

          defeats the relief sought by the plaintiff at this stage.17.                The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that it came to know

          about the use of impugned trade marks by the defendant during a

          random search on the Internet and accordingly issued a legal notice

          dated 23.09.2011 to the defendant asking them to stop using the

          impugned trade marks. The plaintiff further stated that since the

          defendant did not respond the legal notice, it presumed that the

          defendant has stopped the use of trade mark "Metro" of the plaintiff.TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                           Page No. 10 of 19However, in my considered opinion, this explanation of the plaintiff is

          not much convincing. When the plaintiff came to know about the use

          of impugned trade marks by the defendant, the plaintiff should have

          approached the court immediately and should have not waited for 2

          years during which the defendant has acquired goodwill and

          reputation under its trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro

          Hospital and Cancer Research Centre" in the state of Madhya

          Pradesh.18.                Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has heavily relied upon the

          judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court inMidas Hygiene Industries P.

          Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors.2004 (73) DRJ 647 to buttress

          his point that mere delay is no ground to decline the injunction to the

          plaintiff.19.                On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for defendant has

          vehemently argued that the plaintiff has no presence in the state of

          Madhya Pradesh, where the defendant is offering its medical and

          hospital services to the needy people. He submitted that the plaintiff

          is operating under its registered trade marks in Delhi and northern

          states and since the defendant has acquired goodwill and reputation

          under its trade marks in the state of Madhya Pradesh, the delay in

          approaching the court dis­entitles the plaintiff from obtaining

          injunction. To fortify his contentions, the Ld. Counsel has relied uponTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                        Page No. 11 of 19the judgments reported in (i) Rhizome Distilleries P. Ltd. & Ors. Vs.

          Pernod Ricard S.a. France & Ors.166 (2010) DLT 12, (ii) Warner

          Bros.Entertainment Inc. & Anr. Vs. Harinder Kohli & Ors. IA No.

          9600/2008 in CS (OS) 1607/2008, (iii) Intel Corporation Vs. Anil

          Hada & Ors. IS No.4567/2002 in CS (OS) No. 933/2002 and (iv)

          Charak     Charak      Pharmaceuticals        (India)   Vs.      Glenmark

          Pharmaceuticals Lted. 2007 (109) Bom LR 1532.20.               I find considerable substance in the contention of the Ld.

          Counsel for defendant that delay in approaching the court dis­entitles

          the plaintiff from obtaining injunction at this stage, more so, when

          delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the plaintiff.21.               So far the judgment of the Hon'le Supreme Court in caseMidas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors.is concerned, there can be no deviation from the observations made

          by the Hon'ble Apex Court that "in cases of infringement either of

          Trade Mark or of Copyright normally an injunction must follow. Mere

          delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of inunction.

          Grant of injunction becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that

          adoption of the mark was itself dishonest".22.               However, facts in the said case are distinguishable from

          the facts in the present case. In the said case, the respondents

          admittedly worked with the appellants prior to launching its businessTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                             Page No. 12 of 19and the appellants were prior and prominent user of the phrase

          Laxman Rekha as a part of the description of the product. In those

          circumstances, it was observed that adoption of the mark "Laxman

          Rekha" by the respondents prima facie indicates the dishonest

          intention to pass of his goods as those of the appellants.23.                But in the present case facts are entirely different. It may

          be noted that the defendant has been operating in Jabalpur, Madhya

          Pradesh and the plaintiff has been offering its medical and hospital

          services in Delhi and in northern regions and it has no presence in the

          State of MP nor it is the case of the plaintiff that it intends to offer its

          services in the state of MP. Further, the defendant is also registered

          owner of the trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital and

          Cancer Research Centre" and has been providing its services under

          statutory protection being registered owner of these trade marks. The

          defendant has claimed that it has been using the aforesaid trade marks

          since 2006, though the plaintiff has denied the same. In this regard,

          Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the defendant has placed on

          record only the Audit report to show its user of the impugned trade

          marks since 2006 which is not sufficient. He further contended that

          there is also discrepancy in this regard.          In the advertisement

          published by the defendant in the magazines in the month of April,

          2013 and June, 2013,       the defendant's hospital is shown to haveTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                            Page No. 13 of 19completed five years and if the 5 years from the publication of these

          advertisement is counted, then the defendant is in use of the impugned

          trademark since 2008 and therefore the claim of the defendant of trade

          marks user since 2006 is false and incorrect. But these submissions

          are not of much relevance. At this stage, prima facie view has to be

          taken. From the audit report placed on record by the defendant, it is

          shown that it has been using the trade marks "Metro Hospital" and

          "Metro Hospital and Cancer Research Centre" since 2006 and

          therefore in these facts, it cannot be said that the defendant is

          dishonest user of the trade marks. Hence, the authority relied upon by

          the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is not applicable in the facts and

          circumstances of the present case.24.               Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has alsoplaced reliance uponthe

          judgment in M/s Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s India

          Stationery Products Co. & Anr. AIR 1999 Delhi 19 to argue that even

          if there is delay, the plaintiff cannot be declined the relief of

          injunction. I have gone throughthe said judgment. It has been held inthe said judgmentthat, "Even though there may be some doubt as to

          whether laches or acquiescence can deny the relief of a permanent

          injunction, judicial opinion has been consistent in holding that if the

          defendant acts fraudulently with the knowledge that he is violating the

          plaintiff's rights thenin that caseeven if there is an inordinate delayTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                          Page No. 14 of 19on the part of the plaintiff in taking action against the defendant, the

          relief of injunction is not denied. The defence of the laches or

          inordinate delay is a defence in equity. In equity both the parties must

          come to the Court with clean hands. An equitable defence can be put

          up by a party who has acted fairly and honestly. A person who is

          guilty of violating the law or infringing or usurping somebody else's

          right cannot claim the continued misuse of the usurped right."25.                However, in the present case, at this stage, there is nothing

          on record to show that the defendant has dishonestly or fraudulently

          got the registration of the impugned trade mark in its name. Hence,

          this authority is also of no help to the plaintiff.26.                It has been held in Warner Bros. Entertainment Ltd. Vs.

          Harinder Kohli & Ors. (cited supra) that, "Delay by itself may not

          necessarily be a ground for refusing injunction, but delay would be

          relevant in adjudging a change in the subject matter in an action

          brought about by a situation in which the plaintiff sat on the fence,

          watching the defendant enrich its trade by investment of money and

          labour and involving third party rights in the same."27.                Similarly, in case of Charak Pharmaceuticals (cited

          supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay

          that. "In the present case, however, it is seen that in spite of

          knowledge of infringement in June 2006, the plaintiffs have chosen toTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                          Page No. 15 of 19file the present suit only in June 2007 that too without offering any

          explanation as to what prevented the plaintiffs to institute the suit in

          earlier point of time. It is, therefore, a clear case of inaction on the

          part of plaintiffs. That can be a good consideration at least to refuse

          the prayer for ad­interim relief. Inasmuch as, request for ad­interim

          relief ought to be considered only if the plaintiffs had approached the

          Court with utmost dispatch. If the plaintiffs fail to show any urgency,

          as in this case for almost a year, will not be entitled for the

          discretionary relief."28.InIntel Corporation Vs. Anil Hada(cited supra), it has

          been held that, "Acquiescence is nothing but one facet of delay. If a

          plaintiff stands by knowingly and lets a defendant built up an

          important trade until it has become necessary to crush it, the plaintiff

          would be estopped by acquiescence. It would be a fraudulent conduct

          to allow knowingly somebody to spend money to build a reputation

          and then try and crush it."29.               In the present case also, admittedly, the plaintiff came to

          know about the use of impugned trade marks by the defendant in the

          year 2011 and instituted the present suit in 2013 and therefore the

          plaintiff has let the defendant to earn goodwill and reputation under

          the impugned trade marks in the state of Madhya Pradesh during that

          period.TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                         Page No. 16 of 1930.               The plaintiff though is registered proprietor and prior user

          of the trade mark "Metro" and the defendant is the subsequent user

          and registered owner of the trade marks "Metro Hospital" and "Metro

          Hospital and Cancer Research Centre, and the plaintiff may have

          prima facie case in its favour, but the balance of convenience does not

          lie in favour of the plaintiff. Rather it lies in favour of the defendant.

          Firstly, because the defendant is operating in the state of MP and

          plaintiff has no presence in the state of MP nor it is the case of the

          plaintiff that it intends to set up any hospital or medical institute in

          state of MP. Secondly, due to delay and acquiescence on the part of

          the plaintiff in approaching the court, the defendant has built up its

          reputation and goodwill in medical and hospital services in the state

          of MP and is providing the medical and hospital services to needy

          people under the trade mark "Metro Hospital" and "Metro Hospital

          and Cancer Research Centre" and further it has got empaneled with

          various government and other institutes under the said trade marks.

          Thirdly, the defendant has been using the trade marks under the

          statutory protection having obtained the registrations under the

          provisions ofTrade Mark Act. Hence, if the defendant is injuncted

          from using its registered trade marks, the defendant shall suffer

          comparative more hardship than the plaintiff. Furthermore, the

          plaintiff shall not suffer irreparable loss and injury if the defendant isTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                          Page No. 17 of 19not injuncted because it is not the case of the plaintiff that the general

          public has been deceived by the defendant by adoption of impugned

          trade marks and the people may have taken the services of the

          defendant as that of the plaintiff. Rather the case of the plaintiff is that

          it came to know about the use of impugned trade marks by the

          defendant during random search on Internet. Therefore, it cannot be

          said that plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the

          injunction is not granted.31.                Furthermore, issue of validity of impugned trade marks of

          the defendant is pending before IPAB as the plaintiff has been granted

          permission to initiate the rectification proceedingsu/s 124of Trade

          Marks Act and legality of the impugned trade marks shall be adjudged

          by the IPAB.32.                In view of aforesaid discussions, in my considered

          opinion, acquiescence and delay on the part of the plaintiff dis­entitles

          the plaintiff from relief of injunction at this stage. Hence, application

          moved by the plaintiff u/o 39 rule 1 & 2CPCis dismissed.33.                With regard to the application of the defendant in the case

          TM bearing No. 13/15, the defendant also cannot be granted relief of

          interim injunction against the plaintiff because the defendant

          admittedly is subsequent user of the trade mark "Metro Hospital" and

          "Metro Research and Cancer Institute" and the plaintiff is the priorTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                            Page No. 18 of 19user of the trade mark "Metro" and has been using the said trade mark

          since 1997 and has acquired formidable goodwill and reputation under

          the said trade mark. Therefore the defendant has no prima facie case

          for grant injunction against the plaintiff.34.                With these observations the application moved by the

          defendant u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 also stands dismissed.Nothing stated herein above shall tantamount to my

          expression on the merits of the case.Announced in the open Court                       (Balwant Rai Bansal)
on 4th September, 2015                    Addl. District Judge ­02 (South­East)
                                                  Saket Courts, New DelhiTM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                        Page No. 19 of 19TM No. 09/13Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P. Ltd. Vs. Satya Sai Cancer
Society

04.09.2015
Present:   None for the plaintiff.Sh. Harsh Parasar, Counsel for the defendant.Vide my separate order of even date, the application moved by

the plaintiff u/o 39 rule 1 & 2CPCis dismissed.Case is now fixed for admission/denial of documents and

framing of issues for 04.11.2015.(Balwant Rai Bansal)
                                            ADJ­02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
                                            04.09.2015TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                    Page No. 20 of 19TM No. 13/15Satya Sai Cancer Society Vs. Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences P.
Ltd.04.09.2015
Present:   Sh. Harsh Parasar, Counsel for the plaintiff.None for the defendant.Vide my separate order of even date, the application moved by

the plaintiff u/o 39 rule 1 & 2CPCis dismissed.Case is now fixed for admission/denial of documents and

framing of issues for 04.11.2015.(Balwant Rai Bansal)
                                            ADJ­02/SE/Saket/New Delhi
                                            04.09.2015TM No. 09/13 & TM No. 13/15                                    Page No. 21 of 19