Judgment :- K. GNANAPRAKASAM, J. 1. The above appeal has been directed against the order of a learned single Judge of this Court, allowing the Original Application No. 796 of 1999 in C.S. No. 984 of 1999, filed by the respondents herein. 2. The respondents filed C.S. No. 984 of 1999 against the appellants herein, praying the Court for various reliefs and one among them being for a permanent injunction, restraining the appellant and others acting on their behalf or claiming through them from using in connection with the corporate name, trading style, internet domain name/website address of the appellant's Company or in connection with computer software programs or any other of the appellant's products or services, the name/trading style/trade mark 'IBS' or 'IBS Technologies' or any other name/trading style/trade mark i.e. phonetically or visually or otherwise identical or deceptively similar to the respondents' trading style 'IBS' and passing off the appellant's business, goods and/or services as and for those of the respondents or as businesses, products and services, associated/connected with that of the respondents. Along with the suit, the respondents filed O.A. No. 796 of 1999, praying the court to grant an interim injunction to the same effect till the disposal of the suit. 3. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be enumerated as under: The case of the respondents is that the 1st respondent viz. International Business Services Group (P) Limited is a Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and the 2nd respondent is responsible for the whole venture as well as in setting up and developing the business of the 1st respondent. Way back in the beginning of 1995, the 2nd respondent started the business under the name of International Business Services Group (IBS) in Jumeria, Dubai, U.A.E. This trading style viz. 'IBS' is being used by the 2nd respondent in his business viz., Computer Software Development Services. According to the 2nd respondent, he desired to locate Offshore Software Development Centre in India during 1995 and 1996 and in this regard, he contacted various people in India. In fact, in the middle of 1995, the 2nd respondent had detailed discussion with Swiss Air Group and Emirates Group and commenced arrangement for entering into a long term agreement for supply of Software Services for their Group. In fact, in the middle of 1995, the 2nd respondent had detailed discussion with Swiss Air Group and Emirates Group and commenced arrangement for entering into a long term agreement for supply of Software Services for their Group. Due to the efforts of the 2nd respondent, the trading style 'IBS' as signifying business of the 2nd respondent was well known in India and abroad by the end of 1995. The 2nd respondent with an intention to expand further, formed the 1st respondent on 23.9.1996 under the trading style 'IBS'. On 2.12.1996, Co-operation Agreement No. 96410 for the Off-shore Development of Computer Software was entered into between the 1st respondent and Atraxis, Switzerland. During October, 1997, the business premises of the 1st respondent was located in a large area of 8, 000 sq.ft. and inaugurated in the presence of Chief Minister of Kerala, which was widely published all over the country. On 1.11.1998, an agreement was signed between the 1st respondent and the Emirates Group, in and by which, it was agreed between the parties that the 1st respondent shall provide Software Services to the Zurich Airport. The trading style 'IBS' of respondents became well known in India and abroad and in fact, during the first year, the turnover was, rupees eight crores and increased into twelve crores in the succeeding year. The respondents' business gained reputation and goodwill within a short span of time. The 1st respondent's Company is one of the most modern Off-shore Software Development Companies in India and it is specialising in the Air Transportation Industry. On coming to know that the appellant is using 'IBS' as its trading name and doing such business in information and technology, a legal notice was sent to the appellant, pointing out that such user by it viz. 'IBS' is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and public, which would amount to passing off the appellant's business and that the same would amount to unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act and calling upon the appellant to cease and desist from using the trade name IBS Technologies. Even before issuing such a notice the respondents came to know that the appellant, in fact, started the Company under the name 'Info Bank Systems Private Limited' in March, 1996 and changed its name to IBS Technologies Private Limited on 19.12.1997. Even before issuing such a notice the respondents came to know that the appellant, in fact, started the Company under the name 'Info Bank Systems Private Limited' in March, 1996 and changed its name to IBS Technologies Private Limited on 19.12.1997. For the notice sent by the respondents, the appellant sent a reply through its lawyer, stating that there would be no confusion and there is no requirement for them to stop use of the said trade name IBS. The appellant, after sending the reply, filed a civil suit before the City Civil Court at Bangalore, against the 1st respondent herein, praying the Court to pass a decree, which would prevent the 1st respondent from filing any suit against the appellant in Chennai or Trivandrum and for other reliefs. The appellant also filed an application for registration of trade mark 'IBS' before the Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai. 4. Under the circumstances, the respondents approached this Court by filing the said application O.A. No. 796 of 1999, praying for the interim injunction referred supra. The said application was resisted by the appellant herein, inter alia contending, a) It is for the respondents to plead and prove that, they are the owners of the brand name IBS in respect of software; b) that the respondents adoption name is not bona fide; and c) that the adoption of the same brand by the appellant has caused irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated monetarily. Inasmuch as the respondents have not satisfied the above requirements, the application filed by the respondents have to fail. In the counter affidavit, it was also pointed out that it is for the respondents to prove irreparable loss and in fact, the customers of the parties are knowledgeable a lot and will not get confused so easily. There is yet another contention that the adoption by the appellant is bona fide and it is using the name given to them by the statutory Authorities. There is no possibility of any confusion at all or that the respondent neither made out a prima facie case or the balance of convenience favours them. 5. There is yet another contention that the adoption by the appellant is bona fide and it is using the name given to them by the statutory Authorities. There is no possibility of any confusion at all or that the respondent neither made out a prima facie case or the balance of convenience favours them. 5. The learned single Judge after elaborately considering the matter, came to the conclusion that the first respondent company had gained reputation and goodwill in the trading name from 1995 onwards and being the first adopter and user, it would be entitled to have the exclusive right for using the trade style/trading name 'IBS'. 6. Before considering the factual basis of attack of the order of the learned single Judge, we prefer to refer to few decisions in a brief manner to point out the legal principles on the basis of various rulings which will have direct reference to this case. In 1978 AIR(Delhi) 250 (Century Traders v. Roshanlal Duggar & Co.), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court ruled thus, "Thus, the law is pretty well settled that in order to succeed at this stage the appellant had to establish user of the aforesaid mark prior in point of time than the impugned user by the respondents....." " In our view the proof of actual damage of fraud is unnecessary in a passing off action whether the relief asked for is injunction alone or injunction, accounts and damages. If there is a likelihood of the offending trade mark invading the proprietary right, a case for injunction is made out. We are fortified in coming to this conclusion court in Prina Chemical Works v. Sukhdayal, 1974 (1) ILR(Delhi) 545." The next ruling that can be usefully referred is reported in 1996 PTC 415 . At page 434 in paragraph 26 of the Judgment, the Supreme Court ruled thus, "A Division Bench decision of Delhi High Court which has often been lost sight of as will be shortly noticed, needs to be stated in a little detail. It is Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., 1978 AIR(Delhi) 240. It was a case of passing off action. The following principles are deducible from the Division Bench decision:- (1) ........ (2) ........ (3) ........ (4) ........ (5) Common law rights are left wholly unaffected (by registration). It is Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., 1978 AIR(Delhi) 240. It was a case of passing off action. The following principles are deducible from the Division Bench decision:- (1) ........ (2) ........ (3) ........ (4) ........ (5) Common law rights are left wholly unaffected (by registration). Priority in adoption and use of the trade mark is superior to priority in registration....A single actual use with intent to continue such use eo instanti confers a right to such mark as a trade mark. (6) ........ (7) A passing off action is an action in deceit. The plaintiff has to prove that either there has been actual passing off or the use of the mark by the defendant has actually caused confusion or damage to the plaintiff, is a proposition which cannot be accepted. Proof of actual damage or fraud is unnecessary in a passing off action, whether the relief asked for is injunction alone or injunction accounts and damages. If there is likelihood of the offending trade mark invading the proprietary right, a case for injunction is made out. The next ruling that can be referred with reference to acquiring of reputation is one reported in 1942 AIR(Bombay) 241 (K.M. Multani v. Paramount Talkies of India, Ltd. and Others). In that case, the Bombay High Court held thus," A plaintiff's title to a trade or business name is determined by proof of reputation, and reputation comes from user. Interference with trade or business reputation is sufficient ground for the Court's interference. There is no law laying down the particular length of time during which such reputation can be acquired, but it must be acquired by a user sufficiently long according to the circumstances of the case to warrant the reputation. "In 1978 F.S.R. (Fleet Street Reports) 387 (John Walker & Sons Limited v. Rothmans International Limited and John Sinclair Limited, the Chancery Division had occasion to consider a dispute between a cigarette dealer and whisky dealer both having the same name. "In 1978 F.S.R. (Fleet Street Reports) 387 (John Walker & Sons Limited v. Rothmans International Limited and John Sinclair Limited, the Chancery Division had occasion to consider a dispute between a cigarette dealer and whisky dealer both having the same name. Justice Brightman held in that case thus:" To put the matter in general terms, if one trader acquires a reputation with the public in relation to a particular name or get-up, the use of that name or get-up by another trader in either an associated field or even in a different field may be restrained if the public may be confused into thinking that the product or service of the other trader has the cachet of the first trader's established name or get-up. This is to be distinguished from what may be called product confusion. In the case with which I am concerned there is obviously no possibility whatever of product confusion. No one would purchase the defendants' Red Label cigarettes thinking that he was buying the plaintiffs' Red Label whisky. The confusion, if any, is only that of name. "In 1966 PTC 426 (Montari Overseas Ltd v. Montari Industries Ltd.), a Division Bench of High Court consisting of M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J. (as His Lordship then was) and Justice Anil Dev Singh, the Court ruled as follows:" Copying of a trade name amounts to making a false representation to the public from which they have to be protected. Besides the name of the company acquires reputation and goodwill, and the company has a right too to protect the same. A competitor cannot usurp the goodwill and reputation of another. Once of the pernicious effects of adopting the corporate name of another is that it can injure the reputation & business of that person. "In (Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. v. Kirloskar Dimensions Pvt. Ltd.), a learned Judge of the Karnataka High Court after considering various decisions, in para 22 held thus," 22.... In order to maintain an action in passing-off the reputation or goodwill is required to be established by the plaintiffs. 23. ........ Considering the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and that of the law relating to an action in passing-off, I am of the view, that once reputation has been established plaintiff need not establish the fraudulent intention or misrepresentation in an action for passing off. 23. ........ Considering the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and that of the law relating to an action in passing-off, I am of the view, that once reputation has been established plaintiff need not establish the fraudulent intention or misrepresentation in an action for passing off. Therefore, I hold that once reputation is established by the plaintiff there is no further proof of fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants required to be proved or established. "Yet another ruling that can be referred is reported in 1995 PTC 165 (Power Control Appliances and Others v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. and Others). In paragraph 44 of the Judgment, it is held thus," It is a settled principle of law relating to trade mark that there can be only one mark, one source and one proprietor. It cannot have two origins. Where, therefore, the first defendant-respondent has proclaimed himself as a rival of the plaintiffs, his claim as joint owner is impermissible in law. Even then, the joint proprietors must use the trade mark jointly for the benefit of all. It cannot be used in rivalry and in competition with each other. "It will be useful to refer to the ruling in Asiatic Government Security Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd., 1939 AIR(Madras) 555. A Division Bench of this Court in that case held thus," In suit by one company for injunction restraining another company from carrying on business under similar name it is not sufficient to show that there is a similarity of names but it must also be shown that there is a reasonable probability that the use of the name would result in the defendant's appropriating the material advantage of the plaintiff's business and before the Court will grant an injunction, a very high standard of affirmative proof is required to establish the plaintiff's case or that the similarity of the names is of itself sufficient. "7. Both parties sought leave to place further materials and this Court granted the same. 8. Now let us proceed to consider the various issues that arise for consideration. The first question is as among two parties, who first adopted and used the letters 'IBS' in their business. "7. Both parties sought leave to place further materials and this Court granted the same. 8. Now let us proceed to consider the various issues that arise for consideration. The first question is as among two parties, who first adopted and used the letters 'IBS' in their business. The case of the respondents is that the second respondent in the beginning of 1995 started business under the name 'International Business Services Group' (IBS) at No. 2, Safa Village, Jumeira, Dubai, UAE, and that he has been using the trade style IBS. This claim of the respondent is not denied by the appellant but however that may not take us much anywhere. 9. The respondents have produced a copy of the letter dated 9th October, 1995, written by the second respondent/second plaintiff to the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Trivandrum, wherein the second respondent had sought the assistance for him to set up IBS project-Offshore Software Development Centre at Trivandrum. In the said letter we find the letters 'IBS' is conspicuously mentioned on the top, for which the Chief Executive Officer sent a reply on 6.10.1995. These documents are not disputed by the appellant. It is claimed on behalf of the respondents that first respondent was formed on 23.9.1996 and this has not been disputed. On 5th July, 1997, the International Business Services group, advertised calling for applications to fill up the post of four Vice-Presidents in different departments in that Company. The said advertisement was made in English dailies viz., 'Indian Express', The Economic Times' and 'Times of India' between 5th July and 11th July, 1997. The copies of the same are made available before this Court and it can be seen that the contents in all the said advertisements are the same. In those advertisements the letters 'IBS' are printed on the left hand side top. We may also mention that these three documents are not disputed. At this stage, it has to be pointed out that the advertisement in the newspaper prominently with all India circulation would mean at least the said Company spending amounts somewhere between a lakh and two. Even before this, the International Business Services Group Pvt. Ltd., Kerala entered into an agreement on 2.12.1996 with Atraxis Ag. Switzerland for computer development services for a period of ten years. Even before this, the International Business Services Group Pvt. Ltd., Kerala entered into an agreement on 2.12.1996 with Atraxis Ag. Switzerland for computer development services for a period of ten years. A copy of the said agreement is produced before us and we find, there again the first respondent has used the letters 'IBS'. 10. Coming to the adopting and user of the the letters 'IBS', by the appellant, the documents placed before us would show the earliest date when the appellant adopted was on 23.6.1997, when it advertised in Deccan Herald and in fact at that point of time the approval for change of name of the Company was pending with the Registrar of Companies. Similar advertisements in the same newspapers have been filed between the said date till December 1997 informing the public that they are imparting training in various courses. It has to be pointed out that such advertisement was made on various dates only in the newspaper mainly circulated in the Karnataka State. Of course, the appellant Company appears to have passed a resolution in May 1997 with a view to remove the confusion among the general public, resolving to change the name as 'IBS' Technologies Private Ltd. It appears that necessary request was made by the appellant to the Registrar of Companies and only on 19.12.1997, approved the change of new name as 'IBS' Technologies Private Ltd. The resolution passed by the Company in May 1997 is in the nature of their official internal document and it cannot be accepted that the public would have known about it by that time. 11. A copy of the plaint in O.S. 3512 of 1999, suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant herein) on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore has been placed before us. Plaintiff is described as 'IBS' Technologies Pvt. Ltd. In paragraph 3 of the plaintiff it is stated as under:" The Plaintiff was incorporated as private limited Company under Indian Companies Act, 1956 on 6.3.1996. "This is a wrong statement. Because, earlier, the Company was known as Info Banking Systems Pvt. Ltd. and it was incorporated on 6.3.1996. Subsequently, the name of the Company was changed as 'IBS' Technologies Pvt. Ltd. only on 19.12.1997. 12. "This is a wrong statement. Because, earlier, the Company was known as Info Banking Systems Pvt. Ltd. and it was incorporated on 6.3.1996. Subsequently, the name of the Company was changed as 'IBS' Technologies Pvt. Ltd. only on 19.12.1997. 12. At this juncture, it may also be pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed in O.A. 796 of 1999 on behalf of the appellant, there is no claim made by the appellant that it only adopted the letters 'IBS' earlier. The above discussion would show that with reference to the prior user, there is no iota of doubt on the basis of materials available on record that it was the respondents started using the latters 'IBS' earlier to the appellant. 13. The next aspect to be considered is regarding establishment of reputation and goodwill. The respondent has filed before us two agreements viz., the Agreement with Atraxis Ag, Switzerland, entered into on 2.12.1996 for a period of ten years. The another agreement is with Emirates, Dubai, UAE dated 1.11.1998. These agreements would show that the first respondent has entered into business contract for extending long term computer development services. The contract appears to worth several crores. Of course, an objection is raised by the appellant that a complete copy of the two agreements have not been furnished before the Court. The stand of the respondents is that since certain clauses in the agreement are to be kept confidential, they would not be in a position to give a copy of the complete text to the appellant. But, however, they were willing to produce the same for the perusal of Court, if ordered. Later, this Court directed the respondents and they produced the original of those two agreements (first respondent's copy) were produced before us. To show that these contracts had been implemented, first respondent has produced certain invoices wherein the first respondent has laid a demand for monthly remittances for the services rendered to the Atraxis Ag, Switzerland. With regard to these two agreements, there were number of news items as well as advertisements in various newspapers both circulated in Kerala as well as throughout India like Economic Times. The Hindu Business Line, Financial Express, The Hindu, Business India, Times of India. 14. With regard to these two agreements, there were number of news items as well as advertisements in various newspapers both circulated in Kerala as well as throughout India like Economic Times. The Hindu Business Line, Financial Express, The Hindu, Business India, Times of India. 14. Turning to the plaint as well as affidavit filed in this case, it has been categorically stated (in para 11) that the respondents' actual business commenced well before the contracts were signed and that in October 1997, the business premises of the first respondent was located at a large area of 8000 sq.ft. in Technopark, Trivandrum and it was formally inaugurated with contracts already in hand and being processed for global computer software development services, by the Chief Minister of Kerala with wide publicity all over India. There is a clear contention/claim that the respondents have been building up and acquiring substantial goodwill and reputation in India and abroad in the trading style 'IBS' from the beginning of the year 1995. These categorical statements/averments made by the respondents have not been refuted by the appellant in the counter statement dated 17.1.2000 filed by it in O.A. 796 of 1999. It may also be pointed out that in the counter statement, as already stated, appellant has not claimed prior user nor given any details with regard to the extent of business activities in terms of turnover, etc. The pleas taken in the counter affidavit are, (1) regarding the maintainability of the suit before this Court; (2) objection that the respondents have not mentioned whether respondents have applied for registration of the trade mark; (3) that the adoption of the appellant is bona fide and that such adoption will not cause confusion so easily; and (4) respondents should prove irreparable loss which could not be compensated monetarily. Only for the first time in the grounds of appeal before this Court, (ground No. 10) it is stated that the respondents have not produced even a single document to show the goodwill or reputation gained by them by doing business in the name of IBS. It may be noted that the two contracts which we have been referred earlier, with Atraxis Ag, and Emirates, in fact have been referred to in the plaint as well as in the affidavit and as stated earlier, the respondents have producad entire copy of the agreements (first respondent's entire copy) for perusal. 16. It may be noted that the two contracts which we have been referred earlier, with Atraxis Ag, and Emirates, in fact have been referred to in the plaint as well as in the affidavit and as stated earlier, the respondents have producad entire copy of the agreements (first respondent's entire copy) for perusal. 16. A notice dated 7.4.1999 was sent by the first respondent to the appellant. In the notice, first respondent has claimed that it is involved in software development in addition to placement, training, internet, etc., and it is one of the most modern offshore software development companies in India and providing quality service to its global customers in Europe, North America and Middle East from its state of the art facility at Tachnopartk, Trivandrum. The notice further reads that the appellant is involved in information technology business and using identical trade name/style "IBS technologies" is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and public. These allegations are denied in the notice dated 22.4.1999 issued by the appellant. In the plaint filed in O.S. 3512 of 1999 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore, the appellant has claimed there that it has associated offices at United States of America, Mauritius and Switzerland and the appellant is contemplating to open offices at United Arab Emirates. It is also stated that the plaintiff within a short span of time, due to their hard work and ability to discharge complicated software development contracts with Industry majors like IBM Global Services, Siemens Infosys, etc. and it is operating both in the software development and training human resources for the development of the software. In the affidavit filed in O.A. 796 of 1999, in paragraph 18 it is stated by the first respondent that it is providing software development services in air transportation, pharmaceuticals, insurance, finance, etc. and it is shocked to know that the appellant Company was carrying on similar business of software development services under the name IBS Technologies Services. There is also a pleading that the respondents have set up a largest offshore Computer Software Development Services Centre in Kerala, the second largest Computer Software Development Services in India, for the aviation industry with expansion planned in other sectors. There is also a pleading that the respondents have set up a largest offshore Computer Software Development Services Centre in Kerala, the second largest Computer Software Development Services in India, for the aviation industry with expansion planned in other sectors. In paragraph 19 of the affidavit, a specific plea is made by the first respondent that the use by appellant of the identical trading style 'IBS' in respect of the same field of providing Computer Software Development Services is likely to and is in fact resulting in confusion, deception and passing off. For the pleas raised in the affidavit of the first respondent, though a counter affidavit has been filed by the appellant, the same has not been disputed. What all stated in the counter affidavit is that there would not be any confusion as the parties concerned are knowledgeable. Only for the first time in the memorandum of grounds filed in this appeal (ground No. 6), it is contended that the activities of the appellant Company in the field of software are entirely different and distinguishable from the activities carried on by the respondents and that the business activities of both the parties are entirely different from each other and that there is no basis or likelihood of public mistaking the business carried on by the appellant as that of the respondent. 17. This Court on assessing the above materials come to a prima facie conclusion that the first respondent is operating in the field of Software Development Services with plans to expand in other sectors (para 18 of the affidavit in O.A. 796 of 1999), while the appellant is also operating in Software Development Contracts and also training human resources for the development of the software. Both of them are operating not only in India but also in abroad and in fact, the appellant in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit has mentioned that both the parties substantially cater to foreign clients. 18. Hence we are not at this stage inclined to accept the stand of the appellant that its activities are entirely different and distinguishable from that of the first respondent. 19. Once we come to such a conclusion, the decision reported in 1995(2) LW 486 (First Computers, etc. v. A. Guruprasad) would not apply. 18. Hence we are not at this stage inclined to accept the stand of the appellant that its activities are entirely different and distinguishable from that of the first respondent. 19. Once we come to such a conclusion, the decision reported in 1995(2) LW 486 (First Computers, etc. v. A. Guruprasad) would not apply. Because, that was a case where one party is dealing in sales and service of computers and the other one is educating the people by imparting computer knowledge. In fact in that case, the Division Bench observed thus," It is also better to remember that persons who approach the plaintiff for the purchase of computers and the defendant for training under the defendant are educated people, who cannot get confused since the activity of both the parties are different. The apprehension of the respondent on the basis of the allegation alone cannot be termed as genuine. "20. Yet another aspect to be taken note of is that the appellant company was incorporated on 6th March, 1996. Then the Company name was "Info Bank Systems (P) Ltd." After a year thereafter, somewhere in May 1997, the Company claims to have passed a resolution. According to the resolution, the words, 'Bank Systems' that are found in the name of the Company has created confusion in the minds of the Public in India to the effect that the activities of the company are confined to banking activities. To remove such a confusion, the Company resolved to change the name of the Company as "IBS Technologies Pvt. Ltd." or to some other name. The resolution also mentioned the alternate names as (1) IBS Software Pvt. Ltd. (2) Futune Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (3) Global Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (4) Infotech Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Even though we directed the appellant to produce the original minutes book (of Board of Directors), the appellant has produced only a typed copy of only the text of the resolution in May 1997, for the reasons best known to it. The Registrar of Companies, Bangalore examined the request and issued registration certificate for the change of the name. The said certificate is dated 19.12.1997. The Registrar of Companies, Bangalore examined the request and issued registration certificate for the change of the name. The said certificate is dated 19.12.1997. Only since then, the appellant company is known as 'IBS' Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It has to be pointed out that the appellant was not particular about the name 'IBS' Technologies Pvt. Ltd. because in fact; it gave three alternate names without the letters 'IBS'. Had any one of those three names was assigned, the Company would have accepted it. It could be seen that immediately after applying for certificate, the Company, in all the advertisements started using the name 'IBS Technologies Pvt. Ltd.' without waiting for issue of certificate for change of the name. So, as far as the appellant is concerned, it has to be taken, till the end of 1997, in all fairness, it was not entitled to use the name 'IBS Technologies Pvt. Ltd., leave alone whether it is legal or not. Though the counter affidavit has been filed nothing has been mentioned about the business details of the appellant company. Only advertisements made is in 'Deccan Herald' and 'Deccan Chronicle', the newspapers circulated within the particular state have been filed that too only after 23rd June, 1997. 21. The Supreme Court of India had occasion to lay down the norms as to when the High Court should interfere in appeals against interlocutory orders in case of this nature. That was the case reported in (Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd.), where the Apex Court in paragraph 14 held thus," The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle.