Metis Eduventures Private Limited India v. Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited & Ors

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶1The plaintiff has instituted the present commercial suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off their services as those of the plaintiff through use of the mark 'CAREER POWER' and its device, from using the trade name 'METIS EDUVANTURES', and from infringing the copyright in the artistic work comprised in the plaintiff's device mark, along with ancillary reliefs of rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages and costs.

¶2Vide orders dated 04.10.2024 and 03.04.2025, defendant nos.4 and 2, respectively, were proceeded against ex parte, and neither of them has filed

a written statement. Insofar as defendant nos.1 and 3 are concerned, the suit already stands decreed against them, with their consent, vide this Court's order dated 03.04.2025. As a result, there is no defendant who is contesting the suit.

¶3The matter is taken up today on the plaintiff's request for pronouncement of judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') against defendant nos.2 and 4.

¶4The plaintiff, Metis Eduventures Private Limited India, is a company incorporated on 16.02.2012, having its registered office at Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. It is engaged in developing, conducting and offering training and other courses, including instruction methodology, courseware and operational systems, and has developed specialised coaching programmes for aspirants of the Staff Selection Commission, banking and other competitive examinations. These programmes are delivered through coaching institutes, either owned by the plaintiff or franchised and licensed by it, which operate under the mark 'CAREER POWER'.

¶5According to the plaintiff, the mark 'CAREER POWER' and its device, which comprises the words 'CAREER POWER' in a blue and red colour scheme with a blue underline, together with a stylised figure of a person in red and blue placed within a white box, were adopted in the year 2010, when the first branch was opened in Noida. The plaintiff pleads use since 2010. It claims to operate more than 70 branches across the country and to carry on business through the websites www.careerpower.in and www.adda247.com, besides having a substantial following on YouTube, Instagram and Facebook.

¶6The mark is not registered. The plaintiff's first application for

registration of the device mark, dated 08.10.2012 in Class 41, was refused. Its second application, dated 28.05.2019 in Class 41, filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis, was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No.2044-0 dated

21.03.2022 and was opposed by defendant no.3 vide application dated

11.05.2022. The suit is, therefore, founded on the plaintiff's common law rights in the mark, actionable in passing off, and on the copyright claimed by the plaintiff as the author of the artistic and literary work in the device mark.

¶7Defendant no.1, Career Power Coaching Centre Private Limited, is a company incorporated on 04.01.2021, having its office at Hisar, Haryana, and defendant no.3, Mr. Arun Kumar, is its director. Defendant no.2, M/s Metis Eduvantures, is described in the plaint as a proprietorship concern, having its principal place of business at Hisar, Haryana.

¶8The plaintiff entered into a Franchise Agreement and a Brand Licensing Agreement, both dated 31.12.2018, with defendant no.4, whereby a non-exclusive, non-transferable and non-assignable licence was granted to use the plaintiff's intellectual property for imparting classroom training. The plaint states that defendant no.2 was thereafter reconstituted as a partnership under a Partnership Deed dated 15.02.2019, of which defendant no.4 and defendant no.3 were among the ten partners. On 01.04.2019, the plaintiff entered into a Brand Licensing and Brand Supply Agreement with these franchisees, valid until 31.03.2021 under Clause 20.1 and renewable at the sole discretion of the plaintiff upon thirty days advance notice under Clause

20.6.

¶9The plaintiff pleads that no notice of renewal was ever received, and the agreement accordingly came to an end on 31.03.2021. Under its terms, the licensees had agreed that, upon termination for any reason, the licence

would immediately terminate, they would immediately cease use of the trademark 'CAREER POWER' and the associated know-how, return all material bearing the plaintiff's intellectual property, and not apply for or use any trademark identical or similar to the plaintiff's mark.

¶10Insofar as the trading name is concerned, the plaint specifically avers that defendant no.2 adopted the name 'Metis Eduvantures', which is visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to the plaintiff's corporate name, and that the plaintiff did not object to it earlier only because defendant no.2 was its licensee and was conducting its operations on the plaintiff's behalf.

¶11The plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice dated 03.06.2022 to all the parties to the agreement, which remained unanswered. It also came to light that defendant no.3 had applied for registration of the impugned device mark Class 41 on a 'proposed to be used' basis. In December 2022, the plaintiff came across the Facebook and Instagram pages titled 'Career Power Hisar', operated by defendant no.1, which displayed the impugned device mark and linked to the plaintiff's own website. The present suit came to be filed thereafter.

¶12On 23.12.2022, summons were issued in the suit and notice was issued in the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, being I.A. 22331/2022. The Court noted the plaintiff's reliance on Clause 6 of the agreement and on a decision of a co-ordinate Bench in the following terms: "23. Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn attention of the Court to Clause 6 of the aforesaid Agreement to show that (i) the parties to the Agreement acknowledged the fact of the plaintiff being the sole owner and proprietor of the intellectual property forming subject matter of the present suit; and

(ii) the franchisee/licensee did not have the right to use the intellectual property of the plaintiff on termination of the Agreement.

xxx xxx xxx

¶26Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench dated 16th October, 2018 in CS(COMM) 236/2016 titled Ritanand Balved Education Foundation v. Ranchhod M Shah & Ors., wherein it has been observed that an action of passing off is based on confusion and deception and would apply with greater force in the field of education. xxx xxx xxx

¶31Based on the averments in the plaint and submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs, a prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiff as well as to the public unless the defendants are restrained by way of an ad interim injunction."

¶13By the same order, the defendants and all those acting on their behalf were restrained, until the next date of hearing, from advertising, marketing or offering on third-party websites, including www.facebook.com, services bearing the impugned marks or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAREER POWER' and its device, in relation to education, providing training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities. Defendant nos.1 and 3 were also directed to take down the Facebook page titled 'Career Power Hisar'. The ad interim injunction has continued thereafter.

¶14On 23.11.2023, the Court took note of an affidavit dated 17.07.2023 filed on behalf of defendant nos.1 and 3, in which it was deposed that the Facebook page 'Career Power Hisar' and the listings on third-party websites had been taken down, and that the name of their coaching centre had been changed, after the injunction order, to 'CPC' in January 2023, and was later modified to 'CP Hisar'.

¶15Vide Order dated 03.04.2025, the suit was decreed against defendant nos.1 and 3 on their consent. The relevant part of the order reads as under:

"3. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 and 3 in terms of prayer clauses contained in paragraph no.89(a) to (d) of the plaint.

¶4It is further directed that the defendant no.1 shall change its corporate name in a manner so as to not include the mark "CAREER POWER" or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff"s trade mark. xxx xxx xxx

¶6The defendant no.3 also undertakes to withdraw the opposition bearing no.1163738 filed by him against the trade mark application bearing no.4189642 filed on behalf of the plaintiff within two (2) weeks from today.

¶7Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 3, submits that it has been inadvertently noted in the order passed on 4th October, 2024 that he is representing the defendant no.2 as well. However, he has no instructions to appear for the defendant no.2.

¶8To be noted, the defendant no.4 was proceeded against ex-parte on 4th October, 2024.

¶9Since no appearance has been entered on behalf of the defendant no.2 despite service, the defendant no.2 is also proceeded against ex-parte."

¶16On 08.09.2025, the plaintiff did not press I.A. 2913/2023, which had been filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, on the statement that defendant nos.1 to 4 had complied with the injunction order dated

23.12.2022. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further stated that she was pressing for a decree against defendant nos.2 and 4.

¶17Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that a decree in terms of the reliefs prayed for in paragraph 89(a) to (d) of the plaint ought to be passed against defendant nos.2 and 4, namely, permanent injunction against passing off of the plaintiff's services offered under the mark 'CAREER POWER' and its device, against passing off of the plaintiff's trading name 'METIS EDUVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED', against unfair competition, dilution and tarnishment, and against infringement of copyright.

¶18It is contended that the failure of defendant nos.2 and 4 to enter

appearance and present their written statements must be construed as an admission of the plaintiff's rights. Reliance is placed upon the decision in Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed,1 to submit that a party who chooses not to participate in the proceedings cannot be allowed to enjoy an advantage for such conduct.

¶19Learned counsel, on instructions, gives up the reliefs of damages and costs, and confines the claim against defendant nos.2 and 4 to the reliefs of permanent injunction contained in paragraph 89(a) to (d) of the plaint.

¶20I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

¶21Defendant no.4 was served by publication and was taken to be duly served on 04.10.2024. He has never entered appearance and was proceeded against ex parte on the same date. Defendant no.2 was also taken to be served on 04.10.2024. Even if its time to file a written statement is reckoned from that date, the outer limit of 120 days under the proviso to Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, expired in the first week of February 2025. No written statement was filed, and defendant no.2 was proceeded against ex parte on 03.04.2025.

¶22The present suit is a commercial suit. The consequence of not filing a written statement within the outer limit of 120 days in such a suit is no longer open to debate. In SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd.,2, the Supreme Court held as under: "8. A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is

12016 SCC OnLine Del 6717. 2(2019) 12 SCC 210.

the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by the proviso in Order VIII Rule 10 also adding that the Court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days."

¶23The right of defendant nos.2 and 4 to file a written statement, therefore, stands forfeited, and the case squarely falls within Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

¶24Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, as it applies to commercial disputes, reads as under: "10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. Provided further that no Court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement."

¶25The provision has to be read with Order VIII Rule 5(2) CPC, which provides that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved.

¶26The scope of these provisions was explained by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan,3 which arose from a decree passed by this Court under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in a suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court first noticed the two distinct provisions which operate on the failure to file a written statement: "There are thus two separate and distinct provisions under which the Court can pronounce judgment on the failure of the defendant to file

3(1999) 8 SCC 396.

Written Statement. The failure may be either under Order 8 Rule 5(2) under which the Court may either pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts set out in the plaint or require the plaintiff to prove any such fact; or the failure may be under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC under which the Court is required to pronounce judgment against the defendant or to pass such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit."

¶27After examining Order XII Rule 6 CPC and Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Supreme Court held that the Court cannot act mechanically, and laid down the test to be applied before pronouncing judgment against a defendant who has not filed a written statement: "In view of the above, it is clear that the Court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically. While enabling the Court to pronounce judgment in a situation where no Written Statement is filed by the defendant, the Court has also been given the discretion to pass such order as it may think fit as an alternative. This is also the position under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC where the Court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit. xxx xxx xxx

¶29As pointed out earlier, the court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the court. In a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, the court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of the court"s satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved" used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 Order 8, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used in Rule 10

Order 8."

¶28The Supreme Court also emphasised that a decision under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC must be a judgment in the sense of Section 2(9) and Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC: "It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. xxx xxx xxx Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex-parte and is ultimately decided as an ex-parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8 Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved."

¶29These principles were reiterated in C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda,4 where the Supreme Court explained that the object of the provision is to expedite the disposal of the suit and not to penalise the defendant: "25. We find sufficient assistance from the apt observations of this Court extracted hereinabove which has held that the effect of non-filing of the written statement and proceeding to try the suit is clearly to expedite the disposal of the suit and is not penal in nature wherein the defendant has to be penalised for non-filing of the written statement by trying the suit in a mechanical manner by passing a decree. We wish to reiterate that in a case where written statement has not been filed, the court should be a little more cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC and before passing a judgment, it must ensure that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment and decree could not possibly be passed without requiring him to prove the facts pleaded in the plaint.

¶26It is only when the court for recorded reasons is fully satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved at the instance of the plaintiff in

4(2012) 5 SCC 265.

view of the deemed admission by the defendant, the court can conveniently pass a judgment and decree against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But, if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case arising from the plaint itself giving rise to two versions, it would not be safe for the court to record an ex parte judgment without directing the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. In that event, the ex parte judgment although may appear to have decided the suit expeditiously, it ultimately gives rise to several layers of appeal after appeal which ultimately compounds the delay in finally disposing of the suit giving rise to multiplicity of proceedings which hardly promotes the cause of speedy trial."

¶30In the context of commercial suits, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nirog Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta,5 has held that the provision should be invoked where the defendant fails to pursue its case, while cautioning that the plaint and documents must be of an unimpeachable character: "11. Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the legislature to expedite the process of justice. The courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing the written statement by pronouncing judgment against it. At the same time, the courts must be cautious and judge the contents of the plaint and documents on record as being of an unimpeachable character, not requiring any evidence to be led to prove its contents. xxx xxx xxx

¶28The present suit is also a commercial suit within the definition of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and it was the clear intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such cases."

¶31As regards the need for ex parte evidence in suits of this nature, where the plaintiff confines itself to the relief of injunction, a co-ordinate Bench of

5(2016) 235 DLT 354.

this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates (P) Ltd.,6 observed as under: "4. The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are willing to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.

¶5I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction."

¶32Applying these principles, the first circumstance which deserves notice is that there is no contesting defendant left in the suit. Defendant nos.1 and 3, who alone had appeared and filed a reply to the interim injunction application, have suffered a decree on 03.04.2025 in terms of the very same reliefs, i.e. paragraph 89(a) to (d) of the plaint, which are now sought against defendant nos.2 and 4. In Asma Lateef (supra) the Supreme Court cautioned that where even one of several defendants has filed a written statement, the Court should ordinarily prefer the second alternative under Rule 10. That caution is meant to avoid a situation where a decree against a defaulting defendant may conflict with the outcome of a trial on the defence raised by a contesting co-defendant. No such possibility exists here. The co-defendants have not set up any defence that survives for trial. There is, therefore, no defence on record and no version other than the

62013 (54) PTC 419 (Del).

plaintiff's, which leaves nothing to be tried.

¶33Additionally, the plaint has been verified and is supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff's authorised signatory. Defendant nos.2 and 4 have filed no affidavit of admission and denial of the plaintiff's documents, and those documents are, therefore, deemed to be admitted in terms of Order XI Rule 4 CPC as applicable to commercial suits. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Arif Khan,7 decreed a similar suit in the following terms: "24. The plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendant in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted. therefore, in my opinion this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC."

¶34In these circumstances, this Court satisfied that no fact remains which needs to be proved by evidence, and that directing the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence would serve no purpose other than to repeat the contents of the verified plaint. The suit is, therefore, capable of being decided on the basis of the pleadings and documents on record. Nonetheless, consistent with Balraj Taneja (supra) and Asma Lateef (supra), the Court must still examine whether the facts so admitted entitle the plaintiff to the reliefs claimed.

¶35It was recorded on 08.09.2025 that defendant nos.1 to 4 had complied with the injunction order dated 23.12.2022. That compliance, however, was made under the compulsion of an interim order which will not survive the

7CS(COMM) 608/2023, decided on 28.02.2025.

disposal of the suit. Defendant nos.2 and 4 have not appeared to give any undertaking to the Court, and there is nothing on record to assure the Court that the use will not resume once the interim order ceases to operate. In fact, their persistent absence despite service is itself a reason why the plaintiff's rights must be secured by a final decree.

¶36In view of the foregoing discussion, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant nos.2 and 4 in terms of paragraph 89(a) to

(d) of the plaint.

¶37Defendant nos.2 and 4, their principal officers, servants, agents, affiliates, and all others acting for and on their behalf, are permanently restrained from using, advertising, marketing or offering services, including on third-party websites such as www.facebook.com, under the impugned mark or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAREER POWER' and its device, which is the subject of Application No.4189642 in Class 41, in relation to education, providing of training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities, so as to pass off their services as those of the plaintiff, in terms of paragraph 89(a) of the plaint;

¶38Defendant nos.2 and 4, and all others acting for and on their behalf, are permanently restrained from using the name 'METIS EDUVANTURES', or any other name identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trading name 'METIS EDUVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED INDIA', in relation to the aforesaid services, so as to pass off their business as that of the plaintiff, in terms of paragraph 89(b) of the plaint;

¶39A decree of permanent injunction is also passed against defendant nos.2 and 4 in terms of paragraph 89(c) and (d) of the plaint, restraining unfair competition, dilution and tarnishment of the plaintiff's mark, and

infringement of the copyright in the artistic and literary work in the plaintiff's device mark.

¶40The decree passed against defendant nos.1 and 3 on 03.04.2025 shall continue to operate in its own terms.

¶41The Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet.

¶42The suit, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)

JUDGE OCTOBER 05, 2026/P/NK

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010488532022 + CS(COMM) 916/2022, I.A. 22331/2022 & I.A. 2915/2023 Date of Decision: 05.10.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: METIS EDUVENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED INDIA REGISTERED ADDRESS AT: 2 A/3, KUMDAN MANSION ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 ALSO AT 1002, 10TH FLOOR, TOWER C, UNITECH CYBER PARK, SECTOR 39, GURGAON 122002 .....PLAINTIFF (Through: Ms. Ekta Sarin and Ms. Sugandha Yadav, Advs.) versus CAREER POWER COACHING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 263, BISHNOI COLONY HISAR 125001 (HARYANA) M/S METIS EDUVANTURES, 193, RED SQUARE MARKET, NEAR MIRAJ CINEMA, HISAR, HARYANA ALSO AT: SCO-166, RED SQUARE MARKET, NEAR BIKANER SWEET, HISAR, HARAYANA 125001. ARUN KUMAR DIRECTOR OF CAREER POWER COACHING CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED 263, BISHNOI COLONY HISAR 125001 ALSO AT HOUSE NO. 15B, ASHOK VIHAR AZADNAGAR, HISAR, HARYANA, 125001 KULDEEP PROPRIETOR OF M/S METIS EDUVANTURES, R/O SHYAM FURNITURE HOUSE, NEAR KHALERI PALACE, AZAD NAGAR, HISAR, HARYANA -125001. .....DEFENDANTS (Through: None.) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV