HARSHITKUMAR SHANTIBHAI DHAMELIYA PROP OF MS HYZCLOTHING vs HIRAPARA RASILABEN JENTIBHAI PROP OF MS BARHMANI FAHSION — 8/2024

Case under Designs Act, 2000 Section 38,22,27,28. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

COMM TMCS - COMMERCIAL TRADEMARK CIVIL SUIT

CNR: GJSR010076112024

Filing Number

8/2024

Filing Date

28-Jun-2024

Registration No

8/2024

Registration Date

28-Jun-2024

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT SURAT

Judge

3-8th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Designs Act, 2000 Section 38,22,27,28
Code of Civil Procedure Section 151

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARSHITKUMAR SHANTIBHAI DHAMELIYA PROP OF MS HYZCLOTHING

    Adv. A G HADIYA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HIRAPARA RASILABEN JENTIBHAI PROP OF MS BARHMANI FAHSION

  2. 2.DAYABEN JIVANBHAI SUHAGIYA PROP OF MS SAREE ZONE TRADING AS GURUKRUPA FASHION

    Adv. U H JOGANI

  3. 3.JOGANI HARDIK DAMJIBHAI PROP OF MS PANGHAT ENTERPRISE

  4. 4.CHIRAGKUMAR JAYANTIBHAI HIRPARA PROP OF MS CHIGS

  5. 5.MAYANI SAHIL ARVINDBHAI PROP OF MS SPARROW CREATION

  6. 6.JAYESHKUMAR JIVRAJBHAI DHANANI PROP OF MS MM VENTURES

  7. 7.BALDANIYA JAYDIP GOPALBHAI PROP OF MS KEYU FASHION

  8. 8.FASHNEAR TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD TRADING AS MEESHO COM

    Adv. K JHA

  9. 9.FLIPKART INTERNET PVT LTD TRADING AS FLIPKART COM

    Adv. K JHA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Surat Commercial Court disposed of Commercial TMSC No. 8/2024 through Lok Adalat by approving a compromise agreement (under CPC Order 23, Rule 3) between the plaintiff and defendants 1-7, while defendants 8-9 were deleted from the suit. The court made any interim relief absolute, ordered court fee refund to the plaintiff as permissible, and imposed no costs on either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    8th Addl District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    8th Addl District Judge

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    8th Addl District Judge

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    8th Addl District Judge

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Plaintiff Evidence

    8th Addl District Judge

  8. 22-Dec-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    8th Addl District Judge

  9. 18-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    9th Addl District Judge

  10. 11-Nov-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    9th Addl District Judge

  11. 25-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    9th Addl District Judge

  12. 01-Sep-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    9th Addl District Judge

  13. 04-Aug-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    9th Addl District Judge

  14. 01-Jul-2025

    OrderView PDF

  15. 01-Jul-2025

    Plaintiff Evidence

    9th Addl District Judge

  16. 12-Jun-2025

    Written Statement

    9th Addl District Judge

  17. 06-May-2025

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  18. 21-Mar-2025

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  19. 11-Feb-2025

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  20. 18-Jan-2025

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  21. 21-Dec-2024

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  22. 22-Nov-2024

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  23. 14-Oct-2024

    Written Statement

    13th Addl District Judge

  24. 20-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    14th Addl District Judge

  25. 02-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    14th Addl District Judge

  26. 12-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    14th Addl District Judge

  27. 06-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    14th Addl District Judge

  28. 02-Aug-2024

    Written Statement

    14th Addl District Judge

  29. 02-Jul-2024

    OrderView PDF

  30. 02-Jul-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 28-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 8/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Surat Commercial Court disposed of Commercial TMSC No. 8/2024 through Lok Adalat by approving a compromise agreement (under CPC Order 23, Rule 3) between the plaintiff and defendants 1-7, while defendants 8-9 were deleted from the suit. The court made any interim relief absolute, ordered court fee refund to the plaintiff as permissible, and imposed no costs on either party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case