Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. 1. Messrs, Mardie Trading Limited, for short 'Hardie', is a foreign company having its registered office at No. 594 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, Australia. Hardie is the registered owner of the trade mark SPARTAN and Warrior device, it having been registered on 18.6.1926 in Australia and on 6.8.1928 in Newzealand. Hardie registered the trade mark SPARTAN in India on 21.5.1946 under 122172 in Class 2, and on 25.5.1946 under 122175 in Class 3, and the trade mark SPARTAN VELOX on 25.5.1946 under 122174 in Class 2. 2. Messrs Addisons Paints and Chemicals Limited, Huzur Gardens, Sembiam, Madras 11, for short 'Addison', was the selling agent of Hardie in India for the products under the SPARTAN trade mark from 1946 to 1949. In 1948 Addison commenced manufacture of its products under the supervision, technical know-how and quality control of Hardie and until July, 1963, used the SPARTAN trade mark on its products as licensee of Hardie and from August, 1963 till the end of August, 1968, Addison used the trade mark of Hardie in its capacity as Registered User of Trade Mark by agreement dated 11.7.1963. On 31.8.1963, the registration of Addison as a Registered User of the trade mark SPARTAN was cancelled by Hardie. Notwithstanding the cancellation, the terms of the agreement of Registered User were extended from time to time by mutual consent and Addison continued to use the said trade mark till 1971. On 3.11.1971, Addison applied for registration under Nos. 276024 and 276025 in Classes 2 and 3 respectively, for the registration of the device of an ancient warrior in a standing posture within a circle with the words 'Superfine Products' imprinted in the bottom, in its name. This registration was subsequently allowed and Addison adopted the device of ancient warrior, and used the colour combination of blue and red, and green and red. 3. Hardie filed an application for the registration of composite marks SPARTAN and bust of a warrior on 6.12.1971 under Nos. 276724 and 276725. On opposition emerging from Addison for such registration, Hardie unconditionally withdrew the application on 26.4.1974. Addison thereafter filed Application Nos. 330810 and 330811 before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks on 18.11.1977 for the registration of the device of the bust of ancient soldier (warrior) in Class 3 and Class 2 respectively. 276724 and 276725. On opposition emerging from Addison for such registration, Hardie unconditionally withdrew the application on 26.4.1974. Addison thereafter filed Application Nos. 330810 and 330811 before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks on 18.11.1977 for the registration of the device of the bust of ancient soldier (warrior) in Class 3 and Class 2 respectively. These applications were advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and on 7.3.1980, Hardie filed notice of opposition to these applications. In the meantime, on 31.3.1977 Hardie had entered into a trade mark licence agreement with one Hansa Paints and Chemicals, New Delhi, for short 'Hansa'. Hardie assigned Hansa on 11.9.1984 the registered trade marks nos. 122172, 122173 and 122174 (SPARTAN in Class 2 SPARTAN in Class 3, and SPARTAN VELOX in Class 2). On 8.5.1985, Hardie filed Form TM-16 before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to implead Hansa as co-opponent, and interlocutory petitions to take additional evidence. The Deputy Registrar by a common order dated 10.4.1987 allowed the applications. 4. During 1978, the parties resorted to agitate their rights before this Court as well as the High Court at Calcutta. Addison filed C.S. No. 204 of 1978 before this Court against Hansa, alleging inter-alia that by reason of its continuous and extensive usage in India, the trade mark SPARTAN has become distinctive of the goods of Addison. Hardie and Hansa filed C.S. Nos. 835 and 836 of 1978 respectively against Addison for the alleged infringement of the trade mark SPARTAN. A consent order dated 22.2.1979 came to be passed by the High Court at Calcutta in and by which Addison was given the liberty to use the warrior device, Hardie and Hansa were not to object to Addison selling its products under the get up in which it was selling and similarly, Addison was not to object Hardie and Hansa selling their products under any get up, so long as they distinguished their goods from those of Addison. Hansa started using the composite trade mark SPARTAN and bust of warrior from 3.9.1979 onwards. Addison filed Application No. 3973 of 1979 in C.S. No. 204 of 1978 for contempt against Hardie and Hansa. This Court initially ordered the status quo on 24.4.1979 but ultimately held by order dated 28.3.1980 that the status quo was to be governed by the terms of the consent order passed by the Calcutta High Court. 5. Addison filed Application No. 3973 of 1979 in C.S. No. 204 of 1978 for contempt against Hardie and Hansa. This Court initially ordered the status quo on 24.4.1979 but ultimately held by order dated 28.3.1980 that the status quo was to be governed by the terms of the consent order passed by the Calcutta High Court. 5. Addison filed C.S. No. 557 of 1980 against Hansa for a permanent injunction restraining it from selling paints, lacquers or any other product in containers of the shape, colour scheme and get up as that of Addison and also for injunction restraining it from infringing the trade marks No. 331459 and 331461 dated 12-12-1977 in Class 2 and from using the device of a bust of warrior or the device of a full figure of a warrior and for other consequential reliefs. Addison also filed Appln. No. 3971 of 1980 for interim relief and Sathiadev, J. allowed it as prayed for in respect of goods to be manufactured on and from 31-10-1980. Aggrieved by this order, Hansa filed O.S.A. No. 126 of 1980. It appears that previous to the passing of the order of Sathiadev, J., certain proceedings had been initiated before the Calcutta High Court and orders had been passed in those proceedings, which were in conflict with the order passed by Sathiadev, J. in certain respects. This was brought to the Notice of the Division Bench (Ismail, C.J. and Sengottuvelan, J.) and by judgement dated 16-12-1980, it was observed : "We are of the opinion that it will not be advisable for different Courts to pass orders in different proceedings concerning the same subject matter leading to the possibility of conflicting orders being in existence at one and the same time, placing the parties in a difficult and embarrassing situation disabling them from complying with any one order without disobeying another order." * Having thus observed, the Division Bench stayed the order of Sathiadev, J. to the extent that it will be possible for the parties to obey the orders passed by the Calcutta High Court. Thereafter, further proceedings had been initiated before the Calcutta High Court in respect of the same subject-matter culminating in the passing of orders, leading to the filling of appeal and cross-appeal and ultimately another Division Bench by judgment dated 11-11-1987, held as follows: "...Both the parties have submitted before us that they are willing to abide by the order of 22nd February, 1979 and that the order passed by the learned trial Judge, against which this appeal has been preferred, is contrary to the same and no effect is to be given to the same" * Accordingly, by consent of the parties the following order is passed. The last Paragraph of the Judgment of the learned trial Judge and the order, to that effect is set aside. It is recorded that the parties shall give effect to the order of 22nd February, 1979. 6. The Assistant Registrar by order dated 19-6-1989, on a consideration of the materials placed before him ordered Application No. 330813 in Class 3, and Application No. 330811 in Class 2 for registration in the name of Addison and directed the opponents Hardie and Hansa to pay Rs. 510/- as costs in respect of those proceedings, giving rise to the filing of T.M.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1989. 7. The Assistant Registrar, while passing the aforesaid order, commented upon the non-filing of certain documents by the opponents Hardie and Hansa in proof of their case, and with regard to the affidavit filed by them he stated that it did not comply.