BEFORE THE HON’BLE 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 it’s 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

before this Honourable Court.

2. 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

are completely baseless, concocted fabricated one.

3. Plaintiff to the suit has misguided to the Hon’ble 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

such baseless litigation can be curtailed.

4. 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble Court. It is most humbly

urged to this Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble

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:

----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------