9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is supported by an affidavit of Mr. Kevin F.O. Neill which has been duly notarised and authenticated by the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C.A. certificate from the Australian Securities Commission and Secretary of State, State of Delaware has also been filed in support of the change of names. 2. The relief has been strenuously opposed by Shri S.K. Mehra, the learned counsel for the defendant. He has contended that the application has been filed only after the defendants had moved I.A. No. 8511 of 1998 for dismissal of the suit "as the plaintiff-company had ceased and having been acquired by USF Filteration to be the owner and manufacturer of the machine; and also subsequent to the filing of I.A. No. 8315 of 1999 for the dismissal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, without merit. 4. In this analysis I.A. No. 2238 of 1999 is allowed. The amended memorandum of parties is taken on record. I.A. Nos. 8511 of 1998 and 8315 of 1999 are dismissed. Change in ownership of a company is no ground for dismissal of the suit. 5. I.A. No. 10258 of 1999 I.A. No. 10258 of 1999, under Order XI, rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the defendant on 5-10-1999, inter alia , for the following relief : "It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the plaintiffs to give discovery on oath of all the relevant documents which are in their possession and power in respect of acquisition of Brunswick Corporation by the plaintiffs; and thereafter acquisition o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1999 are dismissed by separate orders. This is sufficient reason to dismiss the present application also. The defence of defendant No. 1, in addition to the challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is that the plaintiff has no right in the CPP System and that the defendant has not copied the plaintiff s machines but has adopted and modified the process known the world over. There is a specific denial of the plaintiff s averment that the defendant has, by reverse engineering, manufactured the machines. It is not the stand of the defendant that it has purchased or succeeded to the copyright held by Brunswick Corpn. or obtained a right of user by licence or otherwise from any of the legal corporations mentioned above. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed and owned by Brunswick. This is not its case. Further, I have already expressed the view that the ownership of companies can change hands by transfer/purchase of its shares. Predictably, it has been stated in the plaintiff s reply that no documents have been executed between the plaintiffs and Vivendi. The application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000. 7. I.A. No. 35 of 2000. This application can be appropriately considered after the issues have been struck by the Court and, therefore, a decision is deferred. 8. S. No. 910 of 1995. On 22-7-1998, the Division Bench of this Court had directed that the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar on 17-8-1998, for admission/denial of documents. It was thereafter directed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
