JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, learned counsel for the appellant, stated at the Bar that the question involved in this appeal has already been determined by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case titled as Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs versus Saurashtra Cement Ltd., reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 71 (Guj.). His statement is taken on record. He has also made available copy of the judgment (supra), made part of the file. 2. We have gone through the judgment (supra) and the issue involved in the instant appeal and are of the considered view that the issue involved in this appeal is covered by the judgment (supra). 3. 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. 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. 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) 4. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of in view of the judgment made by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Saurashtra's case (supra), shall form part of this judgment also. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.