JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Mr. Vishal Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, stated at the Bar that the issue involved in all these four appeals is similar and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a batch of ITAs, ITA No. 261 of 2012, titled as The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Chandigarh versus M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, being the lead case, decided on 13th February, 2013, has determined the issue. Further prayed that these appeals may also be determined accordingly. His statement is taken on record. He has also made available copy of the judgment made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA No. 261 of 2012 and other connected matters across the Board, made part of the file. 2. All these appeals are clubbed and are being determined by this common judgment. 3. We have gone through the judgment made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in batch of appeals, lead case of which is ITA No. 261 of 2012 and perused all the appeals. We are also of the same view. 4. It is apt to record herein that the Apex Court in a latest judgment in the case titled as Neon Laboratories Limited versus Medical Technologies Limited and others, reported in (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 672, has directed that every High Court must give due deference to the law laid down by other High Courts. It is profitable to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: “7. The primary argument of the Defendant-Appellant is that it had received registration for its trademark ROFOL in Class V on 14.9.2001 relating back to the date of its application viz. 19.10.1992. It contends that the circumstances as on the date of its application are relevant, and on that date, the Plaintiff-Respondents were not entities on the market. However, the Defendant-Appellant has conceded that it commenced user of the trademark ROFOL only from 16.10.2004 onwards. Furthermore, it is important to note that litigation was initiated by Plaintiff-Respondents, not Defendant-Appellant, even though the latter could have raised issue to Plaintiff-Respondents using a similar mark to the one for which it had filed an application for registration as early as in 1992. The Defendant-Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. The Defendant-Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction. However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants are the same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably erupt since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order. Anarchy would be loosed on the Indian Court system. Since the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more. The Plaintiff-Respondents filed an appeal against the Order dated 31.3.2012 and the Division Bench has, by its Order dated 30.4.2012, stayed its operation.” (Emphasis added) 5. In view of the above, all these appeals are disposed of in view of the judgment made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in ITA No. 261 of 2012 and other connected matters. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.