A. K. SIKRI ( 1 ) AS per the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff is a registered partnership firm which carries on the business of trading and marketing of jewellery and gems of various kinds. It was established in or about the year 1945 and its trade mark M P JEWELLERS has become popular in the world of jewellery and precious and semi precious stones together with its astrological consultancy services. The trade name M P JEWELLERS of the plaintiff is marked on caskets, stationeries, in advertisement and other places. The said trade name M p JEWELLERS is represented in several stylized manners. Specimens of the same have been filed with the plaint. The plaintiff has duly made applications for registration of the trade mark M P JEWELLERS in various styles and in different languages under the Trade and merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in Class 14 in respect of gold, silver, jewellery of all kinds, ornaments, imitation jewellery, precious stones, cases and containers made of precious metals and their alloys, utensils and other articles made of precious metal and/or precious stones. Photocopies of representations enclosed to the applications for registration of the aforesaid trade marks being, applications Nos. 678322, 678323, 678324,678326, 678327, 678564, 678565 and 678566. The plaintiff also claims that it has extensively sold its jewelleries under the name and trade mark MT JEWELLERS and the turnover of the plaintiff firm which was more than Rs. 38 lacs in the year 1988-89 had risen to Rs. 6. 28 crores in the year 1998-99. The plaintiff also publicises and advertises its products extensively in newspapers, radio, magazines, etc. The advertising expenses in the year 1998-99 were more than Rs. 21 lacs. ( 2 ) THE cause of filing of filing of the suit against the defendant was that when the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has incorporated as Pvt. Ltd. Co. and was trading in the name of M P JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. It is stated that the partners of the plaintiff, recently, decided to incorporate a company by the name of M P JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. and to take over and carry on the present business of the plaintiff under the new company. On or about 27/05/1998 the plaintiff made an application before the Registrar of Companies, Nizam palace, Calcutta for registration of the proposed name of the company M P JEWEELERS co. PVT. LTD. LTD. and to take over and carry on the present business of the plaintiff under the new company. On or about 27/05/1998 the plaintiff made an application before the Registrar of Companies, Nizam palace, Calcutta for registration of the proposed name of the company M P JEWEELERS co. PVT. LTD. or M P JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. In or about august, 1998, the plaintiff got shocked upon receiving an oral information from the office of the Registrar of Companies, calcutta that the defendant has already registered its company name as M P JEWELLERS pvt. LTD. before the Registrar of Companies. The Registrar of Companies, Calcutta replied to the plaintiff s aforesaid application dated 27/05/1998 by a letter dated 26/08/1998 stating that the proposed name of the plaintiff cannot be registered as its company because it too nearly resemables the name of an existing company. The plaintiff was required to suggest fresh name for consideration of the availability of the name. In these circumstances, the present suit was filed. ( 3 ) ALONGWITH the suit the plaintiff also filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1and 2 Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ex-parte and ad interim injunction. Order dated 15/07/1999 was passed restraining the defendant, its servants, agents, representatives, distributors, stockists etc. from using the trade name/trade mark M P JEWELLERS in relation to jewelleries and other allied and cognate goods under the trade name/trade mark M P JEWELLERS or any other trade name/trade mark identical with the deceptively similar to the plaintiff s trade mark inspite of service on the defendant, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendant and by order dated 28/03/2001 the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte. The plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavit. The affidavit of Sh. Shibankur Roy chowdhury, who is one of the partners of the plaintiff company, has been filed who has deposed in line with various averments made in the plaint and noted above. This witness has also proved 30 documents as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-30 in support of plaintiff s case. As per these documents, the plaintiff has been able to prove its case and is therefore entitled to decree. It has been held by this court in the case of M/s K. G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Khosla Extraktions Ltd. and Ors. P-1 to Ex. P-30 in support of plaintiff s case. As per these documents, the plaintiff has been able to prove its case and is therefore entitled to decree. It has been held by this court in the case of M/s K. G. Khosla Compressors Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Khosla Extraktions Ltd. and Ors. reported in 1986-PTC-211 that even if a company gets itself incorporated under the Companies Act, action for infringement of the trade mark of passing off would still be maintainable. ( 4 ) THE suit is accordingly decreed. Decree in terms of prayers ( (i) and (ii) of para 34 is passed. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Decree be drawn accordingly. ( 5 ) SUIT and IA stand disposed of.