2025:MHC:705C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

VGN Projects Estates Private Limited,

Represented by its Managing Director

Mr.Pratish Vedhappudi,

No.Y-222, Kimberly towers, 2nd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040. ... Plaintiff

vs.

1. M/s.VGK Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

No.25, 2nd floor, BR Complex,

Duraisamy Reddy Street,

West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.

2. M/s. VGK Property Developers Pvt. Ltd.,

No.25, 2nd Floor, BR Complex, Duraisamy Reddy Street,

West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ... Defendants

Prayer: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules and

Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Sections

134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prays for a Judgment and Decree

seeking following reliefs:

1/47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

(a) Pass and pronounce a Decree of Permanent Injunction against

infringement of plaintiff's registered Trademark by restraining the

Defendants, their assigns, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees,

sister concerns, representatives, servants, distributors, agents, family

members, employees, Legal Heirs etc., and/or any person or entity acting for

or on behalf of them, from using the Plaintiff's trade mark “VGN”,

components thereof, or any other mark(s) deceptively similar thereto

including VGK, singularly or in conjunction with any other words or

monogram/logo, as a trade mark, service mark, corporate name, trade name,

trading style, domain name, website address, electronic mail identity or in

any other manner whatsoever; on or in relation to or any product

service/business including advertising, business papers, etc.;

(b) Pass and pronounce a Decree of Permanent Injunction against the

Defendants, their assigns, successors-in-interest, licensees, franchisees,

sister concerns, representatives, servants, distributors, agents, family

members, employees, Legal Heirs etc. and/or any person or entity acting for

or on behalf of them, from Passing Off their services/goods as or for the

services/goods of the Plaintiff by restraining them from using Plaintiff's

2/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

trade mark “VGN”, Impugned Branding or any other mark(s) deceptively

similar thereto including VGK, singularly or in conjunction with any other

words or monogram/logo, as a trade mark, service mark, corporate name,

trade name, trading style, domain name, website address, electronic mail

identity or in any other manner whatsoever; on or in relation to or any

product, service/business including advertising, business papers, etc;

(c) Pass and pronounce a Decree directing the Defendants and/or their

representatives, officers, etc. to deliver up to Plaintiff for the purpose of

destruction/erasure all infringing materials including but not limited to

catalogues, pamphlets, brochures, billboards, stationery, business cards, bill

books, vouchers, letterheads, signage, reprographic material, or any other

material bearing the name VGK and/or any other mark deceptively similar

to Plaintiff's trademark “VGN” used upon in relation to marketing, selling,

promoting and/or advertising Defendants' goods or business;

(d) Pass a preliminary Decree for rendition of accounts directing the

Defendants to produce before this Hon'ble Court or any person

nominated/designated/appointed by this Hon'ble Court all accounts in

general and invoices and sales figures/revenues in particular from the date

3/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

of infringement/passing off of the Plaintiff's trademark by using the Mark

and upon such enquiry to pay such profits earned by the Defendants as may

be found to be due and payable to the Plaintiff on such account being taken;

(e) Pass and pronounce a final money decree in favor of the Plaintiff

for payment of damages in the sum of INR 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten

Crores) or any such higher sum as may be determined/ascertained pursuant

to the rendition of accounts;

(f) Pass and pronounce an Order directing the Defendants to pay the

Plaintiff the cost of the proceedings; and

(g) Pass such further or other Order or Orders, as this Hon'ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and thus

render justice.

For Plaintiff : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel

for Mr.P.Siddarth, Mr.A.Aravind Raj

for M/s.BFS Legal

For Defendants: Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

Ms.Meha Varshini M.R.

4/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

J U D G M E N T

Background

The suit was filed seeking remedies in respect of alleged infringement

of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'VGN' by use of the impugned mark

'VGK', either singly or in combination with other words, and for passing off.

2. In the plaint, the plaintiff states that it is a multi-million-dollar real

estate company head-quartered in Chennai and that it has built over 8

million square feet of residential real estate. It is further stated that the trade

mark 'VGN', under which the real estate development activities were carried

out, was derived from the name of Mr.V.Guruswamy Naidu, the great

grandfather of the managing director of the plaintiff. At paragraph 3 of the

plaint, the plaintiff has set out details of registered trade marks containing

the element 'VGN'. At paragraph 8, the annual turnover from 2009 - 2010 to

2020 - 2021 and sales promotion expenditure from 2010 - 2011 to 2020 -

2021 are set out.

3. The plaintiff has provided details of an opposition filed against the

5/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

1

st

defendant's trade mark

under Trade Mark no.2430235 in class 37 as early as 14.07.2014. After

stating that the said application and opposition are pending, the plaintiff

further states that it came across a registration for the same mark under

Trade Mark no.2430234 in class 36 and that a rectification action had been

initiated in respect thereof. After also stating that the defendants' adoption

and use of the deceptively similar mark 'VGK' in respect of identical

services is likely to cause deception and confusion, the plaintiff has prayed

for the relief indicated at the outset.

4. In the written statement of the defendants, it is stated that the 1st

defendant is the registered proprietor of the trade mark

under Trade Mark no.2430234 in class 36 and that the said trade mark is

6/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

valid and subsisting. Consequently, it is stated that the defendants are

entitled to claim protection under Section 28(3) read with Section 30(2)(e)

of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act). The defendants have also

stated that the plaintiff was aware of the defendants' application in class 37

as early as on 14.07.2014. Therefore, the defendants assert that the plaintiff

has acquiesced in the defendants' use of the trade mark 'VGK' inasmuch as

the suit was filed about nine years after lodging the opposition.

5. With regard to the reason for adoption of the impugned mark

'VGK', the defendants state that Mr.V.Prabakaran, who is one of the

directors of the 1

st

defendant company, was the proprietor of an entity called

'VGK Contractors and Promoters'. It is further stated that the 2

nd

defendant

was formed in the year 2013 after the business of the proprietary concern

was hived off. At paragraph 7 of the written statement, the defendants have

set out the family tree to show that the promoters of the defendants are the

maternal grand children of Mr.V.G.Krishnan, whose name formed the basis

for the abbreviation VGK. The defendants further state that they have

carried on business using the impugned mark for about 22 years. After

7/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

denying that the trade mark of the plaintiff and the defendants is similar, the

defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed.

6. On the basis of the pleadings and documents, the following issues

were framed on 15.04.2024:

“(i) Whether the suit is barred by Section 12 A of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim proprietorship

over the trademark VGN or its formative marks?

(iii) Whether the defendants are the registered proprietor

of the trademark VGK BUILDERS

under No.2430234 in Class 36?

(iv) Whether the suit is maintainable as against the

registered proprietor in view of Section 28(3) of the Trademarks

Act, 1999?

(v) Whether the trademark VGK has been coined by the

defendants honestly and is based on the name of the predecessor

of the director of the defendants company ?

(vi) Whether the defendants are entitled to the defence

under Section 35 of Trademarks Act, 1999 ?

(vii) Whether the trademark VGN and VGK Builders/VGK

property Builders are deceptively similar to each other

8/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

phonetically, visually or structurally ?

(viii) Whether the plaintiff relief to restrain the defendants'

name VGK as a company name/trade name is maintainable or

whether the same is barred by limitation ?

(ix) Whether the defendants are using the trademark VGK

since the year 2002 ?

(x) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the

grounds of latches and acquiescence under Section 33 of the

Trademarks Act, 1999 ?

(xi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed

in the suit ?

(xii) To what other reliefs ? ”

7. The plaintiff examined Mr.Pratish Vedhappudi, managing director,

as P.W.1. In course of the examination-in-chief of P.W.1, 24 documents

were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P24. P.W.1 was cross-examined by learned

counsel for the defendants. The defendants adduced evidence by examining

Mr.H.Manoj Krishnan, managing director of the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants, as

D.W.1. In course of his examination-in-chief, 105 documents were

exhibited as Exs.D1 to D105. D.W.1 was cross-examined by learned senior

counsel for the plaintiff.

Counsel and their contentions

9/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

8. Oral arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were advanced by

Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, learned senior counsel, and on behalf of the

defendants by Mr.R.Sathish Kumar, learned counsel. The parties also filed

written submissions.

8(a). The first contention of learned senior counsel for the plaintiff

was that the plaintiff has used the trade mark 'VGN' from 1942 and has

acquired significant reputation and good will. By referring to the turnover of

the plaintiff from the financial years 2009 – 2010 to 2020 – 2021, learned

senior counsel submitted that the turnover was as high as

Rs.693,56,68,762/- in financial year 2019 - 2020. For the said year, he

pointed out that the sales promotion expenditure was Rs.16,26,14,487/-. He

also referred to the certificate in this connection at page 670 of the

convenience set (Volume-II).

8(b). The second contention of learned senior counsel is that the

plaintiff and its group entities are the registered proprietors of several trade

marks containing the element VGN. With particular reference to the

10/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

plaintiff, he referred to the registrations in classes 36 & 37 of device and

word marks. He particularly emphasises that the word mark is 'VGN

creating assets since 1942' and that the registration in class 37 is in respect

of building, construction, repair and installation services.

8(c). The third contention of learned senior counsel is that the

defendants are not entitled to rely on the prior use by VGK Contractors and

Promoters. In order to substantiate this contention, learned senior counsel

referred to the cross-examination of D.W.1. After pointing out that D.W.1

had not provided any authorisation for deposing on behalf of the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants (question and answer 5), he referred to the answers to questions

12, 13, 18 and 26. By focussing on the answer to question 26, he submitted

that none of the assets of the proprietary concern were transferred to either

the 1

st

or 2

nd

defendant. Therefore, he submits that the trade mark 'VGK' (an

intangible asset) was not assigned or transferred to the 1

st

or 2

nd

defendants.

In this connection, by referring to the answer to question 62, he contended

that D.W.1 admitted that Mr.V.Prabakaran, the proprietor of VGK, is not a

shareholder or director of the 2

nd

defendant. Since the defendants are not

11/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

entitled to rely on the use by the proprietary concern of the trade mark

'VGK', learned senior counsel submitted that use by the defendants should

be examined only from the date of incorporation of the defendants in the

year 2012 (first defendant) and 2013(second defendant), respectively. By

referring to the defendants' explanation that the name VGK was derived

from V.G.Krishnan, learned senior counsel submitted that Section 35 of the

TM Act does not apply.

9(a).In response to these contentions, Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

submitted that the plaintiff has not provided any documents with regard to

the proprietorship of the trade mark 'VGN' or the authority under which the

plaintiff asserts title or right to use the trade mark 'VGN'. His next

contention is that the 1

st

defendant is the registered proprietor in class 36.

Consequently, the defendants are entitled to protection under sub-section (3)

of Section 28 even assuming that the trade marks of the plaintiff and the

defendants are identical or deceptively similar.

9(b). The next contention of learned counsel is that the rectification

12/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

petition in respect of the 1

st

defendant's registered trade mark was filed in

January 2023 after issuing a cease-and-desist notice, and that this suit was

filed even later. Considering the fact that the opposition was lodged on

14.07.2014, learned counsel submits that the plaintiff has acquiesced in the

use of the impugned mark by the defendants. In order to buttress this

contention, learned counsel referred to the cross-examination of P.W.1.

With particular reference to the answers to questions 31 to 42, learned

counsel submits that P.W.1 admitted that proceedings were first initiated

only in 2023 and that no action was taken between 2014 and 2023. In this

regard, by referring to paragraph 8 of the evidence in support of the

application by the 1

st

defendant in relation to trade mark application

No.2430235 in class 37, he submits that the plaintiff was put on notice that

the 1

st

defendant is using the trade mark 'VGK Builders' as a trading style

since the year 1999. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that a classic case

of acquiescence in terms of Section 33 of the TM Act is made out. In

support of this contention, learned counsel referred to and relied upon the

following judgments:

(i) M/s.Power Control Appliances and others v. Sumeet Machines

13/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448, particularly paragraphs 29 to 31 thereof;

(ii) Hatsun Agro Products Ltd. v. Arokiya Foods, 2023 (93) PTC

592[Mad], particularly paragraphs 22 to 24 thereof;

(iii) M/s.Addison & Company Limited v. M/s.Addison Cable Pvt.

Ltd., judgment dated 09.11.2023 in C.S.No.39 of 2021, particularly

paragraphs 43 to 45 thereof.

9(c). Learned counsel next dealt with the merits. After referring to the

family tree, he submitted that Mr.H.Manoj Krishnan and Mr.H.Satish

Krishnan are the maternal grandchildren of Mr.V.G.Krishnan and that

Mr.V.Prabakaran, who is the son of Mr.V.G.Krishnan, is their maternal

uncle. Mr.V.Prabakaran earlier carried on business as the proprietor of VGK

Contractors and Promoters. Such business was carried on until the

incorporation of the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants. He also pointed out that

Mr.V.Prabakaran is currently a director of the 1

st

defendant and, in fact, was

a witness to the subscription by the first directors to the Memorandum and

Articles of Association of the 1

st

defendant. In effect, he contended that the

defendants have derived the names of the two defendant entities from the

14/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

name of the business of the predecessor-in-business. Hence, he states that

the defendants are entitled to protection under Section 35 of the TM Act.

9(e) By virtue of being the registered proprietor of the trade marks

, learned counsel submits that the defendants have an impregnable defence

as regards the action for infringement. Even as regards the action for

passing off, he submits that acquiescence qualifies as a defence. Without

prejudice, after referring to the details of projects executed by the

defendants between 2014 and 2022 in respect of the aggregate built up area

of about 3,44,873.5 square feet, learned counsel submits that no case is

made out for the grant of relief either in respect of alleged infringement or

passing off. He also submits that the nature of the business should be taken

into consideration while examining whether the use of a mark is likely to

cause deception or confusion. In the specific context of the use of a mark in

relation to the development of real estate, learned counsel submits that

potential customers undertake detailed due diligence on the developer

15/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

before deciding whether to enter into a joint development agreement or any

other agreement with a developer. On this issue, learned counsel relied upon

the relevant factors in a passing off action, as set out in paragraph 35 of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Limited v. Cadila

Pharmaceuticals Limited, (2001) 5 SCC 73.

10. By way of rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the plaintiff made

the following submissions:

(i) Mr.V.Prabakaran was neither a subscriber to the Memorandum and

Articles of Association of the defendants nor a promoter director.

(ii) In answer to question no. 45, P.W.1 stated specifically that he had

obtained a no objection certificate from his father for use of the trade mark

VGN. Therefore, the plaintiff discharged the initial onus, which shifted to

the defendants but was not discharged by them.

(iii) In the factual context of the plaintiff lodging the opposition to the

trade mark application in class 37, an inference of acquiescence cannot be

drawn. In response to question no. 84, D.W.1 admitted that the plaintiff was

opposing the use of the mark by the defendants since 2003.

16/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

(iv) Documents relating to the use of the mark by VGK Contractors

and Promoters were exhibited through D.W.1, who is neither the author nor

the recipient thereof. Therefore, those documents cannot be relied upon.

(v) Without prejudice, only the unregistered construction agreements,

and not the registered powers of attorney or the registered sale deeds, refer

to VGK Contractors and Promoters.

(vi) Since use by Mr.V.Prabakaran cannot be attributed to the

defendants, the defendants do not qualify as successors-in-business of

Mr.V.Prabakaran and, consequently, they cannot rely on Section 35 of the

TM Act.

(vii) The plaintiff was justified in not resorting to pre-institution

mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (the

Commercial Courts Act) in view of the issuance of a cease-and-desist notice

prior to the institution of the suit and the failure by the defendants to

exhibit any intention to resolve the dispute by mediation or otherwise upon

receipt thereof. He also submitted that urgent interim relief was necessitated

upon noticing the advertisement by the defendants of the impugned mark at

17/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

the fair of CREDAI.

Discussion, analysis and conclusions:

11. Upon taking stock of the rival contentions, it becomes necessary

to consider and dispose of the issues framed by this Court. The first issue

framed by this Court relates to whether the suit is barred by Section 12A of

the Commercial Courts Act, and the said issue is dealt with first.

Issue No.1

12. The suit was presented in August 2023. In the plaint, the plaintiff

has referred to the trade mark applications filed by the defendants, including

the last filings on 06.12.2022. The plaintiff has also referred to the cease-

and-desist notice dated 06.1.2023 and stated that the cause of action is

continuous and recurring since every use of the impugned mark by the

defendants qualifies as a fresh cause of action. Interlocutory applications

were submitted along with the plaint seeking interim relief.

13. In Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D.Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC

18/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

1382, the Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff can unilaterally

determine whether a suit contemplates urgent interim relief. While holding

that the plaintiff cannot make such determination unilaterally, the Supreme

Court further held that the Court should examine whether the interim

application was filed with a view to circumvent the requirement of Section

12A. In the context of an action for infringement and passing off in relation

to intellectual property, as contended by the plaintiff, every use of the

impugned mark constitutes a distinct cause of action. Although the plaintiff

was not granted interim relief, the admitted position is that the plaintiff

requested for such relief. I find no reason to conclude that such interim

application was lodged only to circumvent the requirement of pre-institution

mediation. Therefore, issue no.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue Nos.2, 3 & 4:

14. Issue no.2 relates to whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim

proprietorship over the trade mark 'VGN' or its formative marks. The

plaintiff has referred to various trade mark registrations in paragraph 3 of

the plaint. These registrations are stated to be in the name of the plaintiff or

19/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

its group companies. In support of the contention that the plaintiff is the

registered proprietor, the plaintiff filed registration certificates. The said

registration certificates were exhibited as Exs.P15 and P16. Ex.P15 relates

to trade mark no.3411942 for the mark 'VGN creating assets since 1942'

under classes 36 and 37, which was registered with effect from 17.11.2016.

Ex.P16 is also in respect of an identical device mark, which was registered

with effect from 24.03.2017. Therefore, without doubt, at least as regards

Exs.P15 and P16, the plaintiff qualifies as the registered proprietor. In

answer to question no. 45, P.W.1 stated that a no objection certificate was

obtained by him from his father for the use of the trade mark 'VGN'. An

annual turnover certificate showing turnover from financial year 2009-2010

is on record as Ex.P17. On balance, I conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to

claim proprietorship over the trade mark 'VGN'.

15. Issue no.3 relates to whether the defendants are registered

proprietors of the trade mark 'VGK Builders' under trade mark No.2430234

in class 36. The rectification petition of the plaintiff in respect of trade mark

No.2430234 has been exhibited as Ex.P11. A mere perusal of this exhibit is

20/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

sufficient to conclude that the 1

st

defendant is the registered proprietor of the

trade mark 'VGK Builders' under trade mark no.2430234 in class 36. This

leads to issue no.4, which is whether the suit is maintainable against a

registered proprietor in view of Section 28(3) of the TM Act.

16. Section 28(3) of the TM Act is as under:

"28(3) Where two or more persons are registered

proprietors of trade marks, which are identical with or

nearly resemble each other, the exclusive right to the use

of any of those trade marks shall not (except so far as

their respective rights are subject to any conditions or

limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have

been acquired by any one of those persons as against any

other of those persons merely by registration of the trade

marks but each of those persons has otherwise the same

rights as against other persons (not being registered

users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if

he were the sole registered proprietor."

From the text of sub-section (3) of Section 28, it is clear that it is applicable

where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trade marks, which

are identical or nearly resemble each other. In such situation, it stipulates

21/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

that, as between the two registered proprietors, neither can claim the

exclusive right to the use of the mark merely by registration of such trade

mark. It further stipulates that each registered proprietor will continue to

have the rights conferred by registration as against all other persons, as if

such registered proprietor was the exclusive registered proprietor.

17. In view of the conclusion that the 1

st

defendant is the registered

proprietor of the trade mark 'VGK Builders', even if it were to be concluded

that the two marks are identical, the 1

st

defendant would be entitled to rely

on this provision to contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to exclusive use

of its trade mark vis-a-vis at least the said defendant. Issue nos.2, 3 and 4

are disposed of on the above terms.

Issue Nos.5, 6 & 9:

18. In the written statement, the defendants set out the family tree and

stated that Mr.V.Prabakaran adopted the abbreviation/initialism VGK from

the name of his father V.G.Krishnan. Upon the proprietary concern of

Mr.V.Prabakaran ceasing to carry on business, it is stated that the maternal

22/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

grandchildren of Mr.V.G.Krishnan formed the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants and

adopted the name of the business carried on by Mr.V.Prabakaran, which

name is also an abbreviation of the maternal grandfather's name. As

evidence of use of the trade mark 'VGK', the defendants have placed on

record several sets of documents relating to the development of real estate.

Each set consists of a power of attorney, construction agreement and a sale

deed. By way of illustration, the defendants exhibited power of attorney

dated 20.06.2001 as Ex.D1. This power of attorney relates to a vacant house

site bearing plot no.12 in S.No.62/3 at Chitlapakkam village, Rajendran

Avenue, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District. The corresponding

agreement for sale of land and construction dated 24.06.2002 was exhibited

as D2. The schedule to Ex.D2 tallies with the schedule in the power of

attorney. The corresponding sale deed dated 29.11.2002 has been exhibited

as D3. Once again, the schedule tallies with that in Ex.D1. Out of these

documents, Ex.D2 contains a reference to VGK Constructors and

Promoters, represented by Mr.V.Prabakaran.

23/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

19. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the

construction agreement is unregistered and could have been subsequently

created so as to establish use of the mark 'VGK'. This contention cannot be

countenanced for more than one reason. As noticed earlier, the description

of the property in the schedules to all three documents tally. Secondly, in all

three documents, Mr.V.Prabakaran is described as the son of

Mr.V.G.Krishnan. Although it was contended that he was described as the

son of the late Mr.V.G.Krishnan only in the construction agreement, it is

likely that an inadvertent error was committed in this regard. Similar sets of

documents have been exhibited in respect of other parcels of land as Exs.D5

to D25. It should be noticed that the first set (Exs.D1 to D3) pertains to the

period 2001- 2002 and cumulatively these sets of documents broadly cover

the period running from 2001 to 2013.

20. In addition to the above documents, the defendants have exhibited

the certificate of incorporation of the 1

st

defendant as Ex.D28. The

Memorandum and Articles of Association of the 1

st

defendant also forms

part of Ex.D28. On perusal, it is clear that the subscribers to the

24/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Memorandum and Articles of Association signed their names in the

presence of Mr.V.Prabakaran. Such attestation by Mr.V.Prabakaran

underscores that he was aware of and agreed to the formation of the

company under the name and style of VGK Builders Private Limited. Form

32 in respect of his appointment as a director of the 1

st

defendant has also

been included in Ex.D28. This document discloses that he became a director

of the company on 04.03.2013. The defendants have proceeded to also

exhibit documents relating to the use of the impugned mark by the 1

st

and

2

nd

defendants from the year 2013 to the year 2023. These documents are

exhibited as Exs.D40 to D102. The list of projects of the 1

st

defendant has

been exhibited as Ex.D39 and the sales turnover of the 2

nd

defendant is

exhibited as Ex.D38.

21. On careful appraisal of documents referred to in the preceding

paragraphs, the conclusion that follows is that the defendants honestly

adopted the trade mark 'VGK' on the basis of the name under which

Mr.V.Prabakaran carried on business, and this trade mark is an initialism of

the name of the maternal grandfather of the promoters of the 1

st

and 2

nd

25/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

defendants. This leads to the question whether the defendants are entitled to

the benefit of Section 35 of the TM Act.

22. Section 35 of the TM Act is as under:

"35.Saving for use of name, address or description

of goods or services-

Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a

registered user of a registered trade mark to interfere

with any bona fide use by a person of his own name or

that of his place of business, or of the name, or of the

name of the place of business, of any of his predecessors

in business, or the use by any person of any bona fide

description of the character of quality of his goods or

services. "

The text of Section 35 reveals that a registered proprietor of a trade mark

cannot interfere with the bona fide use by a person of any of the following:

(i) his own name;

(ii) the name of his place of business;

(iii) the name of any of his predecessors-in-business;

26/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

(iv) the name of the place of business of any of his predecessors-in-

business; or

(v) the use by any person of a bona fide description of the character or

quality of his goods or services.

23. As discussed above, the evidence on record leads to the

conclusion that V.G.Krishnan was the name of the maternal grandfather of

the promoters of the defendants. An initialism of the said name, VGK, was

adopted as the trading name of Mr.V.Prabakaran, the son of V.G.Krishnan

and maternal uncle of the promoters of the defendants. After he ceased to

carry on business as the proprietor, his maternal nephews formed the 1

st

and

2

nd

defendants, and he was a witness to their subscription of the

Memorandum and Articles of Association. He subsequently became a

director on the board of the 1

st

defendant. When these facts and

circumstances are considered holistically, the only reasonable conclusion is

that the defendants have bona fide adopted and used the name of the

predecessor-in-business. Consequently, the defendants are entitled to the

27/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

protection offered by Section 35 of the TM Act. Issue nos.5, 6 and 9 are

disposed of on the above terms.

Issue Nos.8 & 10:

24. Issue no.8 relates to whether the relief of restraining the

defendants from using the trade name 'VGK' is barred by limitation. Section

16(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes that a registered proprietor

of a trade mark may apply to the Central Government for the rectification of

the name of a company on the ground that such name is identical with or too

nearly resembles the registered trade mark of such proprietor within a

maximum period of three years from the date of incorporation. If this time

limit runs out, the consequence is that an action for rectification of that

company's name is not maintainable under Section 16. It does not follow

from such conclusion, however, that a suit for infringement and passing off

is not maintainable thereafter. These are two independent remedies. As

narrated earlier in course of discussing issue no.1, every act of alleged

infringement or passing off constitutes a fresh cause of action. Therefore, it

certainly cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation.

28/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

25. Issue no.10 relates to whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on

the grounds of laches and acquiescence under Section 33 of the TM Act. I

first deal with laches. Mere delay will not non-suit a person seeking either

statutory or common law remedies unless such delay either results in the

action being barred by limitation or leads to an inference of acquiescence,

waiver, estoppel or abandonment. Whether the plaintiff acquiesced falls for

consideration next. Section 33 of the TM Act reads as under:

"33. Effect of acquiescence-(1) Where the

proprietor of an earlier trade mark has acquiesced for a

continuous period of five years in the use of a registered

trade mark, being aware of that use, he shall no longer be

entitled on the basis of that earlier trade mark-

(a) to apply for a declaration that the registration

of the later trade mark is invalid, or

(b) to oppose the use of the later trade mark in

relation to the goods or services in relation to which it

has been so used,

unless the registration of the later trade mark was not

applied in good faith.

(2) Where sub-section (1) applies, the proprietor of

29/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

the later trade mark is not entitled to oppose the use of

the earlier trade mark, or as the case may be, the

exploitation of the earlier right, notwithstanding that the

earlier trade mark may no longer be invoked against his

later trade mark. "

26. As is evident from the above, in order to rely on Section 33, the

party placing reliance thereon should discharge the onus of establishing that

the proprietor of the earlier trade mark acquiesced for a continuous period

of five years in the use of the registered trade mark by a later user. Section

33 is, however, not applicable if the registration of the later trade mark was

not applied in good faith. In the case at hand, it was earlier concluded that

the adoption and use by the defendants and the defendants' predecessor-in-

interest was bona fide. Therefore, the exception does not apply.

27. On account of lodging the opposition in respect of the application

by the 1st defendant in class 37, it becomes clear that the plaintiff was

aware of use of the trade mark by the defendants at least as of January 2013.

The present suit was instituted in 2023. Undoubtedly, a period in excess of

30/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

five years had lapsed. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff, however,

contended that the filing of opposition proceedings militates strongly

against any inference of acquiescence. Put differently, his contention is that

the plaintiff did not merely stand by while its rights were infringed and

instead chose to challenge the application for registration. As regards the

registration in class 36, he submitted that such registration was challenged

in rectification proceedings shortly after the plaintiff became aware of such

registration. These contentions cannot be completely brushed aside. Sub-

section (1) of Section 33, however, places emphasis on acquiescence in the

use of the registered trade mark. It also imposes the condition that the

person acquiescing should be aware of such use. In the opposition

proceedings, the defendants filed evidence of use of the impugned trade

mark. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot deny knowledge or awareness of such

use. In effect, it appears that the plaintiff did not acquiesce in the

registration of trademarks by the defendants, but appears to have acquiesced

in the use of such trade mark. In any event, in view of the conclusions

drawn on other issues, a definitive finding with regard to acquiescence may

not be necessary for the adjudication of this dispute.

31/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Issue No.7

28. On account of the conclusion that the defendants are entitled to

protection both under sub-section (3) of Section 28 and Section 35 of the

TM Act, it becomes immaterial as to whether the trade marks 'VGN' and

'VGK Builders' and 'VGK Property Developers' are phonetically, visually or

structurally deceptively similar. The contention of learned counsel for the

defendants, on this issue, that the nature of business and the manner of

decision-making is material while deciding an action for infringement and

passing off is not devoid of merit. As contended by him, the purchase of

immovable property is a big ticket or high value transaction, which is

typically preceded by due diligence by the intending purchaser both on the

property and on the developer. The defendants' predecessor was in business

since 2001, and the two defendants ever since their respective incorporation.

There is no evidence of actual deception or confusion over this considerable

period. While such evidence is not necessary in an action for infringement

and passing off, in the facts and circumstances, it is a relevant consideration.

32/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

As discussed earlier, the evidence on record also points towards

acquiescence by the plaintiff at least in the use of the impugned trade marks

by the defendants. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff and

the defendants are engaged in the same line of business and that the trade

marks are similar, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Issue no.7 is disposed

of accordingly.

Issue Nos.11 and 12:

29. For reasons set out while disposing of the other issues, the

plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed. Since costs follow the event, as

the successful party, the defendants are entitled to costs. The plaintiff is

directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as costs to the defendants towards

lawyer's fees and other expenses.

30. In the result, C.S(Comm.Div)No.205 of 2023 stands dismissed by

directing the plaintiff to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two lakhs only) as costs to the defendants.

12.03.2025

33/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

kj

Plaintiff's witness:

Mr.Pratish Vedhappudi – P.W.1

Defendants witness:

Mr.H.Manoj Krishnan – D.W.1

Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:

Exhibits Documents

Ex.P1 Printout of the plaintiff's balance sheet starting from the period

2011 to 2021.

Ex.P2 Printout of the plaintiff's invoice evidencing the use of

trademarks for the period 2012 to 2023.

Ex.P3 Photocopy of the notice of opposition of the plaintiff in

opposition No. MAS-817485 dated 11.07.2014.

Ex.P4 Photocopy of the counter statement filed by the 1st defendant

in opposition No. MAS-817485 dated 10.11.2014.

Ex.P5 Photocopy of the Rule 50 Application filed by the plaintiff

opposing the 1" defendant registration - opposition No. MAS

817485 dated 05.03.2015.

Ex.P6 Photocopy of the Rule 51 (Evidence in support of the

Application) filed by the 1 defendant in Opposition No. MAS

817485 dated 04.06.2015.

Ex.P7 Photocopy of the Rule 52 (Evidence in support of the

34/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

Application) filed by the 1" defendant in Opposition No. MAS

817485 dated 05.08.2015.

Ex.P8 Printout of the plaintiff's invoice No.88002812 dated

30.11.2018.

Ex.P9 Office copy of the cease & desist notice issued by the

plaintiff to the defendants dated 06.01.2023 along with postal

receipt.

Ex.P10 Photocopy of the notice of opposition filed by the plaintiff

No.5326849 against the 2nd defendant's mark dated

09.01.2023.

Ex.P11 Photocopy of the application for rectification of the 1

st

defendant's mark - rectification proceedings No.2430234 dated

13.01.2023.

Ex.P12 The original certified true copy of the Board Resolution of the

plaintiff company dated 30.01.2023.

Ex.P13 The original side by side comparison of the plaintiff and the

2

nd

defendant's mark in an advertisement published in The

Hindu dated 17.02.2023.

Ex.P14 The original side by side comparison of the plaintiff and the

2

nd

defendant's mark in an advertisement published in The

Times of India dated 17.02.2023.

Ex.P15 The photocopy of the legal proceedings certificate issued by

the Trademark registry of the trade mark no.3411942 dated

24.04.2023.

Ex.P16 The photocopy of the legal proceedings certificate issued by

the Trademark registry of the trade mark no.3513745 dated

24.04.2023.

Ex.P17 The original certificate issued by the chartered accountant of

the plaintiff detailing the turnover the plaintiff company dated

16.06.2023.

35/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

Ex.P18 Original certificate issued by the chartered accountant of the

plaintiff detailing the marketing expenses dated 16.06.2023.

Ex.P19 Original defendant's reply notice to the cease & desist notice

issued by the plaintiff.

Ex.P20 Photocopy of the term sheet between the plaintiff and Piramal

Finance Private Limited.

Ex.P21 Printout of the images of awards received by the plaintiff.

Ex.P22 Printout of the images of the advertisements and Billboards of

the plaintiff.

Ex.P23 Printout of the images of the flyers issued by the plaintiff for

various promotional! activities undertaken by them.

Ex.P24 Printout of the images of the Chennai Super King's Jersey

showing the plaintiff's mark.

Documents exhibited by the defendants:

Exhibits Documents

Ex.D1 Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 20.06.2001.

(Original is produced, compared and returned to the

defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D2 Photocopy of the Sale of Land and Constructive agreement

dated 24.06.2002.

Ex.D3 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 29.11.2002.

Ex.D4 Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 7.02.2003.

(Original is produced, compared and returned to the

defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D5 Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 7.02.2003.

(Original is produced, compared and returned to the

defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D6 Photocopy of the Builders Agreement dated 9.07.2004.

36/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

Ex.D7 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 27.08.2004.

Ex.D8 Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 8.09.2004.

Ex.D9 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 30.09.2005.

Ex.D10 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 25.01.2006.

Ex.D11 Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 30.06.2006.

(Original is produced, compared and returned to the

defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D12 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 6.06.2007.

Ex.D13 Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 23.02.2006.

Ex.D14 Photocopy of the Builders Agreement dated 30.12.2009.

Ex.D15 Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 10.02.2010. (The

counsel for the plaintiff objects on the ground that the

document now produced was not filed along with the written

statement.)

Ex.D16 Photocopy of the Builders Agreement dated 15.12.2010.

Ex.D17 Photocopy of the Sale deed dated 8.03.2011.

Ex.D18 Photocopy of the Builders Agreement dated 3.11.2010.

Ex.D19 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 24.01.2011.

Ex.D20 Photocopy of the Builders Agreement dated 14.06.2013.

Ex.D21 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 28.09.2012.

Ex.D22 Photocopy of the Construction Agreement dated 26.10.2012.

Ex.D23 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 30.11.2012.

Ex.D24 Photocopy of the Construction Agreement dated 5.05.2012.

Ex.D25 Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 13.07.2012.

Ex.D26 Photocopy of the Letter From Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank

dated 19.04.2011.

Ex.D27 Photocopy of the Letter from Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank

37/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

dated 3.06.2015. (Original is produced, compared and

returned to the defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D28 Printout of the Certificate of incorporation of the 1" defendant

dated 28.12.2012.

Ex.D29 Photocopy of the PAN CARD dated 28.12.2012. (Original is

produced, compared and returned to the defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D30 Printout of the Electronic Record of the WHOIS printout

details of the domain name www.vgkbuilders.com dated

5.06.2013.

Ex.D31 Photocopy of the Income Tax Returns of the 1st Defendant

dated 2013-2014 To 2022-2023.

Ex.D32 Photocopy of the Sanction letters from various banks

/financial institutions to be l% defendant dated 2018-2023.

Ex.D33 Original of the Sales turnover of the 1st defendant.

Ex.D34 Printout of the Certificate of incorporation of the 2nd

defendant dated 22.11.2013.

Ex.D35 Photocopy of the PAN CARD dated 22.11.2013. (Original is

produced, compared and returned to the defendant's counsel.)

Ex.D36 Photocopy of the Income tax Returns of the 2nd defendant

dated 2014-2015 to 2022-2023.

Ex.D37 Photocopy of the Sanction letters from various banks/financial

institutions to the 2nd defendant dated 2012-2023.

Ex.D38 Original of the Sales turnover of the 2nd defendant.

Ex.D39 Original of the List of Projects by the 1 defendant with details.

Ex.D40 Certified copy of the sale deed and the photocopy of the

Construction Agreement for VGK JASMINE along with

original brochure dated 17.04.2013 To 15.07.2013.

Ex.D41 Certified copy of the Sale deed and photocopy of the Sale

Agreement for VGK RAM along with original brochure dated

38/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

18.04.2016 To 8.06.2016. (The counsel for the plaintiff

objects on the ground that the certified copy of the sale deed

attempted to be marked is not filed along with the written

statement by the defendant.)

Ex.D42 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction Agreement for VGK LOTUS along with the

original brochure dated 21.05.2016 & 15.07.2016.

Ex.D43 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction Agreement for VGK SNOWDROP along with

original brochure dated 26.09.2013 & 29.09.2013.

Ex.D44 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction Agreement

for VGK BLUE BELL along with original brochure dated

3.07.2014.

Ex.D45 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK SUNSHINE VILLA along with original brochure dated

27.11.2014 & 10.12.2014.

Ex.D46 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement

and sale deed for VGK HAJARAH VILLA along with

original brochure dated 03.08.2021.

Ex.D47 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement

and sale deed for VGK SUMANGALI along with original

brochure dated 28.04.2014 & 17.01.2018.

Ex.D48 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

construction agreement and sale deed for VGK BARBERRY

along with original brochure dated 25.05.2018 & 13.06.2018.

Ex.D49 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement

and sale deed for VGK LOTO along with original brochure

dated 28.02.2015 & 04.03.2015.

Ex.D50 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement

and sale deed for VGK SPEEDWEL along with original

39/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

brochure dated 01.06.2017 & 23.06.2017.

Ex.D51 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction and sale deed

for VGK SAMUDRA along with original brochure dated

02.08.2016 & 29.08.2016.

Ex.D52 Certified copy of the Sale Deed for VGK ORANGE COURT

dated 11.04.2017

Ex.D53 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

construction agreement for VGK SNOWBERRY along with

original brochure dated 01.08.2018 & 17.09.2018.

Ex.D54 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

construction agreement for VGK ADIDEV along with the

original brochure dated 21.08.2017 and 24.11.2017.

Ex.D55 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK ADHIRA along with original brochure dated

31.08.2017 & 25.10.2017.

Ex.D56 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction Agreement CUM Sale Deed for VGK DIKSHA

along with original brochure dated 27.10.2018.

Ex.D57 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

construction agreement for VGK YOGMAYA along with

original brochure dated 17.01.2019 & 22.02.2019.

Ex.D58 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK ARKITA along with original brochure dated

30.08.2018.

Ex.D59 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

construction agreement for VGK SRINIKA along with

original brochure dated 11.10.2018 & 12.12.2018.

Ex.D60 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK DHRUVAH along with original brochure dated

40/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

13.06.2019.

Ex.D61 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK RAKSHAN along with original brochure dated

06.02.2019.

Ex.D62 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

for VGK MAHITA along with original brochure dated

28.11.2020.

Ex.D63 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement

VGK ADITI along with original brochure dated 10.11.2021

Ex.D64 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK AKSHITA along with original brochure dated

23.07.2021.

Ex.D65 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK PRAGATHI along with original brochure dated

25.01.2021.

Ex.D66 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK DHARIKA along with original brochure dated

4.3.2022.

Ex.D67 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK AKRITI along with original brochure dated

29.11.2020.

Ex.D68 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK ADHVAY along with original brochure dated

7.2.2020.

Ex.D69 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK ADHVAY along with original brochure dated

7.2.2020.

Ex.D70 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK SADHANA along with original brochure dated

8.09.2021.

41/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

Ex.D71 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK SAINDHAVI along with original brochure dated

28.12.2022.

Ex.D72 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK SANGAMITHRA along with original brochure

dated 01.02.2023.

Ex.D73 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

VGK UNITY KINGDOM with original brochure dated

07.11.2022.

Ex.D74 Photocopy of Joint Development agreement for VGK

SPRING FIELD along with original brochure dated

07.07.2023.

Ex.D75 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK DIVINE LIGHT along with

original brochure dated 17.08.2016 & 28.11.2016.

Ex.D76 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK PRIME ROSE along with

Original brochure dated 27.03.2018 & 20.04.2018.

Ex.D77 Certified copy of the sale deed for VGK BRINDAVAN along

with original brochure dated 19.11.2017.

Ex.D78 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK MATHURA along with

original brochure dated 10.07.2018 & 20.08.2018.

Ex.D79 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK Sai Gurus than along with

original brochure dated 06.12.2018.

Ex.D80 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK ISHANI along with original

brochure dated 15.12.2018 & 18.01.2019.

42/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

Ex.D81 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK CHETHANA along with original brochure dated

27.04.2019.

Ex.D82 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK MITHILA along with

original brochure dated 10.04.2019 & 23.05.2019.

Ex.D83 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK AATHMIKA along with original brochure dated

1.11.2019.

Ex.D84 Certified copy of the sale deed and construction agreement for

VGK AVYUKTA along with original brochure dated

10.01.2020 & 22.01.2020.

Ex.D85 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGR ARADHANA along with original brochure dated

15.09.2019 & 11.09.2019.

Ex.D86 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK ADVAITHA along with original brochure dated

15.04.2021.

Ex.D87 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK LAVANTHIKA along with original brochure dated

09.12.2019.

Ex.D88 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK SAMYUKTHA along with original brochure dated

11.01.2021.

Ex.D89 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK SAKSHI along with original brochure dated

20.10.2020.

Ex.D90 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK AARUNYA along with original brochure dated

43/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

09.09.2021.

Ex.D91 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK VAINAVI along with Original brochure dated

16.07.2021.

Ex.D92 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK MITHRAN along with Original brochure dated

14.10.2020.

Ex.D93 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK SAI KRIPA along with

Original brochure dated 02.12.2021 & 11.02.2022.

Ex.D94 Certified copy of the Sale Deed for VGK GREEN CITY along

with Original brochure dated 23.11.2022.

Ex.D95 Certified copy of the Sale Deed for VGK GREEN CITY II

along with Original brochure dated 23.02.2023.

Ex.D96 Certified copy of the sale deed and Construction agreement

for VGK SUMMER GARDEN along with Original brochure

dated 24.08.2023.

Ex.D97 Certified copy of the Power of Attorney for VGK SRI SAI

ENCLAVE along with Original brochure dated 27.07.2022.

Ex.D98 Certified copy of the sale deed and photocopy of the

Construction agreement for VGK SRI SAI ENCLAVE along

with Original brochure dated 10.4.2023 & 4.5.2023.

Ex.D99 Certified copy of the Power of Attorney VGK SAI

AROOGYA along with Original brochure dated 27.07.2022.

Ex.D100Certified copy of the Power of Attorney VGK SAI SHRISHTI

along with Original brochure dated 27.07.2022.

Ex.D101Certified copy of the Power of Attorney VGK SAI

AKSHAYA along with Original brochure dated 27.07.2022.

Ex.D102Certified copy of the Power of Attorney VGK SAI SUROOPA

44/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

Exhibits Documents

along with Original brochure dated 27.07.2022.

Ex.D103Printout of the Advertisement flyers of the defendants.

Ex.D104Original of Promotional material in newspapers, brochures,

calendars.

Ex.D105Photocopy of Membership Registrations of the defendants.

12.03.2025

45/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

kj

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

46/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )

C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.205 of 2023

12.03.2025

47/47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/03/2025 08:16:06 pm )