BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

C.S.(OS)NO.453/2015
SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS
.PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
D.R.RADIO CORPORATION & OTHERS

..DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE SUIT AS WELL AS

INJUNCTION APPLICATION BY DEFENDNAT NO.30 AND 34
The answering defendants No.30

and 34 most

humbly begs to file their written statement to the suit as

well as injunction application as under :
1.

The suit as well as injunction application filed by the

plaintiff in its present form is not legal, valid and
maintainable at Law, since admittedly there is not a single
iota of evidence which may reflect involvement of the
answering defendants qua infringing and/or violating any
trade mark or logo of the plaintiff company is placed

2.

before this Honourable Court.

That the suit as well as injunction application deserve to
dismiss by awarding exemplary compensatory cost to the
answering defendants in the interest of justice since on
bare perusal of the commissioner report addendum to the
suit plaint memo page no-45 at serial no.90 as well as
no.49 at serial 14 wherein clearly transpires that nothing

is found from answering defendants and the allegations

as well as averments canvassed in the suit as well as
injunction application against the answering defendants
3.

are completely baseless, concocted fabricated one.

Plaintiff to the suit has misguided to the Honble Court by
making the baseless allegation against the answering
defendants and has obtained ex-parte order to carry out
the commission work at the defendants shop, however
such action of the plaintiff has affected and damaged the
prestige and reputation of the answering defendants in
the market, society and even before relatives not only that
the said action of the plaintiff has disturbed the routine
business of the answering defendants but has also
tremendously disturbed mental and emotional status of
the answering defendants and therefore an example
required to be set by awarding cost to the answering
defendants from the plaintiff to the suit so that in future

4.

such baseless litigation can be curtailed.

That answering defendants to the suit reserves their
rights to take the appropriate defamatory legal actions
against the plaintiffs to the suit and without prejudice to
other available legal rights and contentions to the
answering defendants, they are filing their parawise reply
to the suit as well as injunction application as under :
(A)That, with regard to the para no.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38

(A) (B) (C), 39, 52 and 65 the averments made

therein are strictly required to be prove by the
plaintiff before this Honble Court.
(B)That, with regard the contents of para no.5 and 6,
the averment made therein are not true and correct
and therefore not admitted by the answering
defendants and plaintiff to the suit are strictly
required to be prove before this Honble Court.
(C)That, with regards the contents of para no.40, 41
and 43 answering defendant has nothing to do with
the same.
(D) That, with regard to the para no. 42 the averments
made therein are not true and correct and the
plaintiff to the suit are strictly required to prove the
same before this Honble Court. It is most humbly
urged to this Honble Court the present proceedings
has

been

initiated

only

on

appearance

assumptions and presumptions as admittedly the

plaintiff has not produced any evidence which may
reflect

any

involvement

of

the

answering

defendants violating and/or infringing the trade mark

or copy right of the plaintiff to the suit. Despite the
same the answering defendants dragged into this
unwanted litigations and therefore they are required
to be compensated in terms of money in the interest
of justice.
It is also most humbly submitted that, no suit
can lie on mere appearances, assumptions and

presumptions and also the suit as well as injunction

application

deserves

to

dismissed

the

suit

exemplary compensatory cost.

(E)With regard to contentions para no. 44, 45, 46, 47,
48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62,
63, 64, 66, the averments and allegations so far
canvassed against the answering is concerned the
same is not true and correct and therefore not
admitted by them and plaintiff is strictly required to
prove the same before this Honble Court. Whatever
fake and baseless allegations made under para
under reply to the suit is concerned; the answering
defendants deny the same in toto.
The contentions of the all above paragraphs
and allegations contend therein does not survive
due to the only reason that, nothing from the
answering defendants or from their premises is
found during the so called investigation carried out
by the plaintiff to the suit.
(F) With regard to the para no. 67, 68 averments made
therein are so far as the answering defendant is
concerned the same is not true and correct and
therefore not admitted. The plaintiff is not at all
entitled for any reliefs much less reliefs as
canvassed in the para under reply since the plaintiff
have hopelessly failed to prove or produced any
evidence in support of such vague and baseless

evidence against the answering defendants and

therefore no cause of action for the plaintiff has
arisen for filing of any litigation much less the
present suit and therefore plaint deserves to be
dismissed only on this ground alone. Moreover the
answering defendants file separate application
under Order:7 Rule:11 of the Code of Civil, 1908
drawing the attention of this Honble Court regarding
the same.
(G)
With regard to the para no. 69 the averments
made therein are so far as the answering
defendants to the suit are concerned; the plaintiff is
required to prove the territorial jurisdiction before
this Honble Court. Moreover, admittedly the para
under reply the plaintiff has covered only local
business of Delhi as well as New Delhi and not
more than local locality; which averments clearly
exclude the area of the answering defendants
wherein their shops are located i.e. Ahmedabad and
Surat in Gujarat.
(H)With regard to the para no.70 a to h; the averments
made therein are formal one; does not attract any
comments.
(I) With regard to the para no.71; in view of
aforementioned facts and circumstances of this
case when the plaintiff has prima facie miserably
failed to established any involvement of the

answering defendants in the so called infringement /

violation of trade mark and copy right of the plaintiff
company; plaintiff is not entitled for any relief much
less the reliefs claim in para 71(A),(B), (C)(D)(E)(F)
(G) and (H).
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the reply/written statement filed by answering
defendants to the suit as well as injunction
application; suit as well as injunction application is
required to be dismissed by awarding exemplary
compensatory cost to the answering defendants in
the interest of justice.
Date:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------