Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.

7 Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur

Case No. 29/2016

M/s Sadbhavyarik Cloth House

Vs

M/s Rachana Textiles

Dear Sir,

reply plaint

The reply plaint on behalf of the defendant M/s Rachana Textiles is presented as follows:-

preliminary objection

1. That the said suit by the plaintiff was not presented by the authorized person as per law and was
not signed and verified by the authorized person, prima facie. Worth rejecting.

2. That the plaintiff firm is a partnership firm with two partners. The present suit has been filed by
the sole partner of the plaintiff firm, whereas neither the said partner has been authorized by the
plaintiff firm to present the suit nor is there any consent of the other partners. Even in the plaint, no
statement has been made to the effect that Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, partner on behalf of the plaintiff
firm, has been authorized by the plaintiff firm to present the case. Thus, the suit presented is liable
to be dismissed on the ground of being filed without jurisdiction.
3. That another case between the partnership of the said firm Unwani M/s Satvyavarik Cloth House 5
others vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Jaipuria is pending before the Honorable Court Additional Civil Judge
(Abh) West, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur. Subsequently, the Honorable Court has ordered status
quo on the business of the plaintiff firm and the firm is closed from 21.09.2016 and the business is
completely closed. Business activities have been banned. In such a situation, it was absolutely
necessary for Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, partner of the Yadi firm, to obtain a letter of authority from
the Yadi firm to present the suit, whereas Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria has presented this suit only on his
own behalf and voluntarily. Thus, the plaintiff firm has not developed any cause of action against the
defendant firm for filing the suit. On this basis also the plaint deserves to be dismissed.

itemized answer

1. That after item number of the letter. 1. The fact that the plaintiff firm is a registered
partnership firm and Anuj Kumar Jaipuria has been a partner of the said firm does not help.
But this statement is wrong that Anuj Kumar Jaipuria is capable as a partner to present the
case on behalf of the said firm. The present memorandum has been presented by the sole
partner of the plaintiff firm, whereas neither the said partner has been authorized by the
plaintiff firm to present the suit nor is there any consent of the other partners in it. Even in
the plaint this No statement has been made to the effect that Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, partner,
has been authorized by the said firm to present the suit on behalf of the plaintiff Parm. Thus,
the memoir presented is liable to be rejected on the basis of being presented without
authority. That item number 2 of the memorandum, being documentary, requires reply.
2. No, but it would be appropriate to state here that the present case has been filed only by
Anuj Kumar Jaipuria without any jurisdiction and no consent of the other partner has been
taken. Under the presented plaint, the facts of the plaintiff firm have not been fully disclosed
by Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, partner of the plaintiff firm, and the plaintiff has appeared with
unclean hands. It would be necessary to clarify here that a case between the two partners of
the plaintiff firm i.e. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria and Ajay Kumar Jaipuria in relation to the plaintiff
firm which is situated at shop no. 50 Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur is Unwani M/s Sadvyavari Cloth
House and Others Vs. The matter is pending before the Court of Shri Ajay Kumar Jaipuria and
others, Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Jaipur Metropolitan, under
which, by the order of the above Honorable Court dated 08.03.2016, orders have been
issued to maintain the status quo of the activities of the said plaintiff firm M/s Satyavaharik
 Cloth House. have been given and the business of the firm is closed since 21.09.2015.
Inclusion of the above important facts by Yaadi in bad faith The intention has not been
mentioned in the Haja after presenting it whereas it was absolutely necessary to mention the
facts of Yaad presented earlier.

3. That the facts mentioned in item number 3 of the plaint are not disputed, but it is necessary
to clarify here that between the two partners of the plaintiff firm, namely Anuj Kumar
Jaipuria and Ajay Kumar Jaipuria, the plaintiff firm which is shop no. 50, Gangauri Bazaar,
Jaipur. A memorandum is pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and
Metropolitan Magistrate, West Jaipur Metropolitan, in relation to M/s Satvyavari Cloth
House and others vs. Shri Ajay Kumar Jaipuria and others, situated at , under which the
above mentioned Honorable Court has issued order dated 08.03.2016. Orders have been
given to maintain the status quo in the activities of the said Badi firm M/s Satvaharik Cloth
House and the business is closed since 21.09.2015. Thus, at present no business of any kind
is being done under the above mentioned partnership firm.
4. That in Item No. 14 of the letter above, it is not disputed that the firm is carrying on trade
and business in the name of 'Lal Imli Bala', but the fact that the plaintiff firm is carrying on
trade and business in the name of Lal Imli Bala since the year 2001 is completely untrue and
rejected. The remaining facts are also not disputed on the ground that the firm was
established by both the partners of the firm and subsequently the partners in the plaintiff
firm have been changing from time to time which confirms that of the firm. Business is a
family business and this is the reason why the business was being done by Mrs. Kamlesh
Jaipuria, wife of Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, partner of the plaintiff firm, from address 2206,
Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur, earlier in the name of Goodman Gains Wear Lal Imli Wala and the
answer At the time of presentation of the memorandum, the work of tailored suits is being
done in the name of Kanwar Saheb Lal Imli Yala and similarly the work is also being done by
the defendant with the same authority. The plaintiff Mr. Anuj Jaipuria himself is doing
business using the word Naalimliwala with different names at address 49, Second Chowk,
Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur since the month of February 2016, which is continuing till the
presentation of the counter suit.

5. That under item number 5 of the plaint, the fact that the suits stitched by the plaintiff firm
were being sold in the name of Lal Imli Wala is not disputed. The fact has not been disclosed
by the plaintiff in the plaint that the work of the plaintiff firm has been closed since
 21.09.2015 and due to the dispute arising between the two partners of the plaintiff firm, the
order of status quo on the business of the plaintiff firm has been issued by the Honorable
Additional Civil. Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Jaipur had ordered. After the
closure of the business of the plaintiff firm on 21.09.20.5, the defendant, who is Mrs. Rachna
Jaipuria, wife of the other partner of the plaintiff firm, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jaipuria, addressed
the suit on 16.10.2015 on the basis that the business is a family business. 49. Gangauri
Market, Jaipur issued from. In this item, the said Lal Imliwala name has been alleged by the
defendant to be the trade mark of the plaintiff firm, but no concrete documents have been
presented by the plaintiff firm before the Honorable Court in support of this fact.

6. That item number 6 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. The true fact is that the
plaint has been submitted by the plaintiff without the permission of the other partner of the
plaintiff firm and it has been stated by Door and Badi that the word Lal Imliwala can be used
by any person without the permission of the plaintiff firm. Cannot be done. The above
statements of the plaintiff are completely false and rejected. The owner of the defendant
firm, Mrs. Rachna Jaipuria, being the wife of the other partner of the plaintiff firm, Mr. Ajay
Kumar Jaipuria, is a member of the Jaipuria family. Since the said red tamarind word is being
used by the Jaipuria family, the owner of the defendant firm should also be allowed to use
the said word. There is no need for permission of any other person or plaintiff firm for its
use. It is also necessary to write here that the business was being done in the name of
Goodman Men's Wear Lal Imli Wala by Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, wife of Mr. Anuj Kumar
Jaipuria, partner of Badi firm, from the address 2206. Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur and the reply
memorandum was submitted. At present, the work of tailored suits is being done in the
name of Mr. Kanwar Lal Imli Wala and similarly the work is also being done by the defendant
with the same authority. being done. The aunt has filed the plaint against the defendant with
the intention of misleading the Honorable Court on the basis of wrong and incomplete facts
and no consent of any kind has been taken from the other partners of the firm, whereas in
view of the facts of the counter item, such Consent was necessary before presenting the
plaint. The plaintiff has voluntarily presented the plaint without any reasonable reason and
the plaintiff is not given any legal right to present the plaint.

7. That item number 7 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. Since the plaintiff firm was
run by the ancestors of the present partners of the firm and the owner of the defendant firm
is Mrs. Rachna Jaipuria, the plaintiff is the wife of the second partner of the firm, Mr. Ajay
 Kumar Jaipuria, therefore, on the basis of the above grounds being a family business, the
defendants are not allowed to continue the business. The suit is being sold in the name of Lal
Imli Walale from address 49, Gangauri Bazar, Jaipur since 16.10.2015, about which the
partners of the plaintiff firm have been aware since the beginning. It is also necessary to
mention here that the partner of the plaintiff firm, Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, by whom the
plaint has been filed on behalf of the firm, that his wife, Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, is also the
owner of Lal Imli Wala on the basis of it being a family business. Business is being done in the
name. On the one hand, the plaint filed by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff firm without
any authority, The defendant has filed a complaint against Lal Imli Wala, the same plaintiff,
on the other hand, is using the said mark Lal Imli Wala through his wife Mrs. Kamlesh
Jaipuria and is pretending to be infringing the trade mark. The plaintiff has hidden the facts
of the business being run by Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria from the Honorable Court and under the
guise of the plaint, the business of his wife, who is working in the name of Lal Imli Wala, is
being promoted.That item 8 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. Plaintiff

8. Has not appeared with clean hands and intentions. On the one hand, the plaintiff himself
alleges violation of the symbol Red Tamarind. On the other hand, he himself is doing such
business through his own wife. The plaintiff has been aware from the very beginning of the
fact that the plaintiff firm had been working in the name of Chinha Lal Imli Wala for the last
many years and the business of the firm was established by the ancestors of the firm, hence
it is clear that the family business On the basis of this, the defendant dated 16.10. Started
doing business from 2015 at the mentioned address in Unwan, information about which is
known to all the partners and family members of the plaintiff firm. This fact is completely
untrue and rejected that the plaintiff firm is doing business in the name of Lal Imli Wala since
the year 2001. The plaintiff himself should prove the above facts through concrete
documents.

9. That item number 9 of the latter letter is completely false and rejected. The plaint has been
presented by Chadi with unethical intentions and this is confirmed by the fact that the
partner of the plaintiff firm (by whom the plaint has been presented) Mr. Anuj Kumar
Jaipuria, through his wife Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria. Through this medium, the mark Lal Imli
Wala is being used till today by establishing a business at shop number 2206, Gangauri
Bazaar, Jaipur and on the other hand, Rachna Jaipuria, wife of Mr. Ajay Kumar Jaipuria,
another partner of the plaintiff firm (defendant firm in the plaint) Proprietor) is being
 prevented from using the symbol Lal Imli Wala due to unethical intentions. Therefore, it is
clear from the above facts that the defendant has not committed any unethical act of passing
off any business but on the basis of being a family business, its business is being carried out
using the brand Lal Imli Wala. The goods, business category, trade channel and category of
buyers of the defendant firm are completely different from that of the plaintiff firm. In fact,
the plaintiff firm is not currently conducting any business of any kind since 21.09.2015,
before the stay order of the Honorable above mentioned court. going. The business being
carried on by the defendant firm does not fall in the category of passing off trademark.

10. That item number 10 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. Plaint filed by the plaintiff
only on the basis of family and business rivalry Has been presented before the Honorable
Court Haja and the Honorable Court has been given information about the activities of the
firm, partners, family status of the partners, mutual relations of the partners, cases pending
between the partners, orders passed by the Honorable Court regarding the conduct of the
firm etc. The plaint has not been disclosed at all and the plaint has been filed on the basis of
arbitrary attitude on unethical grounds whereas on the basis of all the actual facts
mentioned above, no suit of any kind against the defendant is found to be worth passing off.
The plaintiff firm was run by the ancestors of the present day owners of the firm and the
owner of the defendant firm is Shrigati Rachna Jaipuria. The plaintiff is the wife of the second
partner of the firm, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jaipuria. Therefore, on the basis of the above grounds
being a family business, the defendant Tailored suits are being sold in the name of Lal Imli
Wala since 16.10.2015, the partners of the plaintiff firm were aware of this from the
beginning. It is absolutely necessary to mention here that the partner of the plaintiff firm,
Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, by whom the plaint has been filed on behalf of the firm, that his
wife, Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, is also running Lal Imli Yala on the basis of it being a family
business. Business is being done in the name. On the one hand, the plaintiff has filed a plaint
against the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff firm without any authority, the same plaintiff,
on the other hand, is using the said mark Lal Tamarind.
11. You have full authority to use the above words for your business.
12. That item number 12 of the subsequent letter is completely false and rejected. The plaintiff
has merely repeated the facts whereas clarification has already been given in the items
mentioned above. But here again it is necessary to make it clear that the defendant firm has
not copied the word Lal Imli Wala used by the plaintiff firm, nor has there been any need for
the defendant firm to do so because the above word Jaipuria. It has been the property of the
 family and being a member of the said family, the defendant firm has full authority to use
the above words for its business.
13. That the manner in which the facts have been disclosed under item number 13 of the plaint
is not acceptable. The legal facts regarding the use of the mark Lal Imli Wala by the
defendant have been stated in the items of the reply mentioned above and there is no need
to repeat them. But here again it is necessary to clarify that at present no business of any
kind is being done by the plaintiff firm and the plaintiff firm does not have sole monopoly in
relation to the said word Lal Imli Wala, rather the said word Lal Imli Wala Jaipuria. It was first
started being used by the family itself. Along with the jurisdiction, the proprietor of the
defendant farm, Dehera, is using the said word Lalibhali Wala for her business.

14. That item number 14 of the memorandum is completely false and denied. That red tamarind
stitched gutra was being sold by the said firm, which is currently not being sold since
21.09.2015, even before the stay order of the Honorable above mentioned court. The said
red tamarind mark was adopted by the elders of the partners of the plaintiff firm and the
said mark is an integral part of the family business and this is the reason why the said mark is
being used not only by the defendant but also by Mr. Anuj Kumar, the plaintiff on behalf of
the plaintiff firm. Jaipuria's wife, Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, has also been working on this tax for
the last one year.
15. That item number 15 of the memorandum is completely false and rejected. The plaintiff firm
was selling ready-made suits in the name of Lal Imli Wala, which is currently not being sold
since the date before the stay order of the Honorable above mentioned court (21.09.2015).
The said Lal Imli Wala mark is being sold by the plaintiff firm. It was adopted by the elders of
the partners and the said mark is an integral part of the family business and this is the reason
why the said mark is not only being used by the defendant but also by the plaintiff Karma,
wife of Shri Anuj Kumar Jaipuria. For the last one year or so Work is being done. The work is
being done by the defendant using the mark Lal Imli Pala only on the basis of being a
terrestrial business and no copyright of any kind has been violated. The plaintiff has filed
such a plaint only to create family grudges and to create hindrance in the business of the
defendant whereas the plaintiff himself is running a business in the name of Chinha Lal Imli
Wala through his wife Kamlesh Jaipuria. The plaintiff has submitted a memorandum hiding
important facts, which deserves to be rejected by the defendant.
16. That item number 15 of the subsequent letter is completely false and rejected. Neither has
there been any infringement of the said trade mark by the defendant nor is the reputation of
the plaintiff firm suffering day by day due to the defendant firm. In fact, no business is being
conducted by the plaintiff firm at present. Because of this, the facts regarding day-to-day
losses prove to be false from the very beginning. The word Lal Imliwala is being used by the
defendant firm as a right of being a member of the Jaipuria family. Thus, the plaintiff firm is
not entitled to have any punitive damages imposed by the court on the defendant firm or to
obtain any kind of permanent injunction.

17. That item number 17 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. No injunction of any kind
is issued to the plaintiff against the defendant. He does not have the right to get it done since
Yadi has filed the suit on the basis of incomplete and false facts. Yahi has no right to compel
the defendant by issuing an injunction. Yadi is not at all entitled to have the defendant's
accounts and books presented in the court, nor is he entitled to obtain any injunction in this
regard. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any such relief from the Honorable Court. A

18. That item number 18 of the letter is completely false and rejected. The plaintiff has filed the
suit against the defendant on false and baseless grounds and has made an unsuccessful
attempt to cause financial loss to the defendant's business, knowing the fact that the mark
Red Tamarind is an integral part of the defendant's family business, which is not only the
defendant but It is also being used in the business by Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, wife of the
petitioner Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria, which the plaintiff firm has not made any effort to stop
even at present. Therefore, it is clear that the defendant is not causing any financial loss to
the plaintiff and on the other hand, all the business of the plaintiff firm is closed since
21.09.2015 and the Hon'ble Court has also ordered a stay on the activities of the plaintiff
firm. Have been passed. The plaint has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant only
due to family rivalry. Plaintiff also solidifies financial loss Has failed to prove the documents
through media. In the absence of any valid reason, a reminder letter has been submitted by
the plaintiff. The petitioner and the financial respondent are not entitled to obtain any
injunction of any kind nor are they entitled to obtain any other relief.
19. That item number 19 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. On the basis of being a
family business, the defendant is carrying out tailored suits and other work in the name of
Lal Igli Wala and the plaintiff has been aware of such facts since the beginning. The plaintiff is
not entitled to obtain any permanent injunction or any other relief against the defendant.
 Yadi has not appeared with clean hands but the memorandum has been presented before
the Honorable Court with malicious intentions, which deserves to be rejected.

20. That item number 20 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. It has been wrongly
stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff had received information about the defendant's
business only on 12.07.2016. The defendant is doing her business at Unwani address 49,
Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur since 16.10.2015 and on the basis of being members of the same
family, it cannot be assumed that the plaintiff was not aware of the defendant's business or
dated 12.07. The information came to light only in 2010 as the workplace of the plaintiff firm
and the defendant are nearby. The address of the plaintiff firm is 50, Gangauri Bazaar while
the address of the defendant firm is 49, Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur.

21. The facts of Uttarwar Bhd make clear the unethical intention of the plaintiff that how the
plaintiff wants to encourage the business of his own partner Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria by
shutting down the work of the defendant and wants to have a monopoly on the said mark.
The partner of the plaintiff firm, Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria (who has voluntarily filed the plaint
without any authority) and his wife Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, have been openly carrying on
business in the name of Lal Imli Wala for almost a year by arranging with each other. Is going
as well as hoardings, banners, visiting cards etc. Advertisement is being done through.
Therefore, it is clear from all the above facts that due to the malice of the plaintiff against the
defendant, the plaint has been filed without the consent of the other partner. That item
number 21 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. The plaintiff has filed a
counterclaim against the plaintiff without any well-founded reason. Due to mere family
rivalry, the plaintiff has filed such a suit without taking any permission or consent from the
partner of the plaintiff firm, which deserves to be dismissed in the absence of cause of
action. No date of origin of the alleged cause of action has been mentioned by the plaintiff in
this item, which makes it clear that the plaintiff has not originated the cause of action against
the defendant.

22. That item number 22 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. Plaintiff Have presented
own risk assessment.
23. That verse number 23 of the tea letter is rejected. By misusing the provisions of the law, the
plaintiff has presented Unvani Chad without any visible reason due to family rivalry and with
the intention of hindering the business of the defendant.

24. ‫در‬That item number 24 of the plaint is completely false and rejected. Despite the plaintiff
being familiar with the business of the defendant firm for a long time, this plaint has been
filed with extreme delay and deserves to be dismissed.

additional statement

1. That the business of the plaintiff firm is very old and the partners in the plaintiff firm have
been retiring from time to time. At present, Mr. Ajay Kumar Jaipuria and Mr. Anuj Kumar
Jaipuria are working as partners in the plaintiff firm, but the business of the plaintiff firm is
closed since 21.09.2015 and due to the long running dispute between the two partners
regarding financial irregularities, a court case is pending. The matter is pending in the
Honorable Court of Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division (West), Jaipur Metropolitan City,
Jaipur, whose case is M/s Sadvyavari Cloth House and others vs. Ajay Kumar Jaipuria and
others and case number 446/2015. In the said Unwani case itself, DDA was ordered by the
above court. Disposing of letter no. 446/2015
2. On 08.03.2016, orders were given to maintain status quo on the business of the plaintiff
firm.

3. That the plaintiff firm has been running the business of hand stitched suits under the brand
name Lal Imli as a family business for the last many years, which is undisputed. The
workplace of the plaintiff firm is locked by both the partners and the business is closed since
21.09.2015. Brief family details of both the partners of Badi firm are as follows
The suit has been filed by Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria against M/s Rachana Textiles whose proprietor is
the wife of Mr. Ajay Kumar Jaipuria, the second partner of the plaintiff firm. The defendant M/s
Rachana Textiles is carrying on business at address 49, Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur since 16.10.2015. t
has been started and the sale of Shilay Shilaye Suitor is being done in the name of Lal Imli Wala, the
knowledge of which has been known to the partner of Gavi Farm, Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria and his
wife since the beginning. On the other hand, Mrs. Kamlesh Jaipuria, wife of Mr. Anuj Kumar Jaipuria,
partner of the plaintiff firm, has been doing the business of tailored suits in the name of Lal Imli Wala
for about a year, which was earlier operating under the name of M/s Goodman Men's Wear Lal Imli
Wala. And currently Kanwar Saheb is operating from the name of Lal Imliwala. The plaintiff Mr. Anuj
Jaipuria himself is doing business using the word Lal Imliwala with different names at address 49,
Second Chowk, Gangauri Bazaar, Jaipur since the month of February 2016, which is continuing till the
presentation of the counter suit.

Therefore, by submitting an affidavit in the reply plaint, it is requested that the plaintiff's damages
and expenses be dismissed.