Milestones UltraTech’s journey began almost three decades ago and throughout this journey, the focus has always been on providing customers with the best products and services. The resulting success has only reaffirmed UltraTech’s desire to be a complete end-to-end building solutions provider. Each milestone in this journey is a cherished memory: becoming the largest cement manufacturer in India, winning the ‘SUPERBRAND’ and 'POWERBRAND' accolades and being recognised as a truly global organization, are a few that stand out. More about us Profiles Brand UltraTech Footprints Team Milestones Awards Logistics UltraTech’s inception can be traced back to the mid-1980s with the establishment of Grasim’s first cement plant at Jawad in Madhya Pradesh. In 2001, with the objective of increasing its reach, Grasim acquired a stake in L&T Cement Ltd. The stake was further increased to a majority stake in 2003 thereby giving Grasim a pan-India presence and an increased market share. In 2004, the demerger of L&T’s cement business was completed and Grasim acquired a controlling stake in L&T Cement Ltd and the name was subsequently changed to UltraTech cement. The cement business of Grasim was demerged and vested in Samruddhi Cement Limited in May 2010, with Samruddhi Cement Limited consequently being amalgamated with UltraTech Cement Limited in July 2010. In September 2010, UltraTech Cement Middle East Investments Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of UltraTech Cement acquired management control of ETA Star Cement Company, along with its operations in the UAE, Bahrain and Bangladesh, thereby putting UltraTech on the global map. Today, UltraTech Cement is the tenth largest producer of cement globally. It has a diverse presence across the globe. The company has eleven integrated plants, one white cement plant and one clinkerisation plant, which is based in the UAE. Furthermore, UltraTech has 15 grinding units across the world: 11 in India, 2 in UAE and 1 each in Bahrain and Bangladesh. It also has 2 rail bulk terminals in India, 3 coastal terminals, out of which 2 are located in India and one in Sri Lanka. UltraTech has 101 concrete plants across 35 locations in India. The history of UltraTech’s progress over the years is given below: 1998 1996 1994 1993 1987 1983 GROWTH STORY 2010 2006 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1996 1994 1993 1987 1983 GROWTH STORY 2010 2006 2004 2003 2002 UltraTech in 2003 The board of Larsen & Toubro Ltd (L&T) decides to demerge its cement business into a separate cement company (CemCo). Grasim decides to acquire an 8.5 per cent equity stake from L&T and then make an open offer to acquireanother 30 per cent of the equity of CemCo, in order to acquire management control of the company.

Press Releases UltraTech has always had a very proactive business approach. This approach has defined every aspect of the business. The company believes that all the stakeholders should be well informed and hence follows transparency in disseminating information in real time. In the News Press Releases Press Reports Features Press Kit Contact Un-audited Financial Results for the Quarter ended 30th June, 2013 29 Jul 2013 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 30th June, 2013. ... Financial Results for year ended 31st March 2013 22 Apr 2013 UltraTech Cement, an Aditya Birla Group company today announced its financial results for the year ended 31st March, 2013. ... Financial results for the quarter ended 31 December 2012 19 Jan 2013 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 31st December, 2012. ... Birla White YuvaRatna Awards for Architects and Engineers 08 Jan 2013 At the 9th Birla White YuvaRatna Awards function, 10 budding architects and engineers from across the country were honoured in Mumbai. Inaugurating the function, Mrs. Rajashree Birla, Director, UltraTech Cement Ltd. ... Financial Results for the Quarter ended 30th September, 2012 20 Oct 2012 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its un-audited financial results for the quarter ended 30th September, 2012. ... Cement performance for May 2012 01 Jun 2012 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-May 2012 moved up by 4.7 per cent at 679.47 lakh mt as against 648.95 lakh mt during April-May 2011. Dispatches also moved up by 3.5 per cent at 678.37 la ... Grasim reports improved performance for FY12 05 May 2012 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its results for the full year and 4th quarter ended 31st March 2012. ... Cement performance for April 2012 04 May 2012 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for April 2012 moved up by 1.72 per cent at 32.93 lakh mt as against 32.37 lakh mt during April 2011. Dispatches stood fl ... Financial results for year ended 31 March 2012 23 Apr 2012 UltraTech Cement, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its financial results for the year ended 31st March 2012. The results for the year ended 31st March 2011 have been recasted to include Samruddhi Cement Limited’s performance for t ... Cement performance for March 2012 03 Apr 2012 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-March 2012 moved up by 3.16 per cent at 396.51 lakh mt as against 384.35 lakh mt during April-March 2011. ... Cement performance for February 2012 02 Mar 2012 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-February 2012 moved up by 3.02 per cent at 357.28 lakh mt as against 346.82 lakh mt during April-February 2011. Dispatches also moved up by 3.2 per cent a ... Cement performance for January 2012 02 Feb 2012 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group Company, for the month of January 2012 stood at 37.8 lakh mt and 37.2 lakh mt, registering a growth of 11.7 per cent and 11.2 per cent over January 2011 respectively. ... Grasim reports better performance for Q3 FY12 24 Jan 2012 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its results for the third quarter ended 31st December 2011. The company’s performance has been encouraging. Cement business has been the major driver. Net revenue increas ... Financial results for the quarter ended 31 December 2011 21 Jan 2012 Net sales stood at Rs. 4,572 crores as compared to Rs. 3,715 crores in the corresponding period of the previous year. Profit before Interest, Depreciation and Tax (PBIDT) is Rs. 1,120 crores and Profit after Tax (PAT) is Rs. 617 crores vis-a-vis Rs. ... Cement performance for December 2011 04 Jan 2012 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group Company, for the period April-December 2011 stood at 284.8 lakh mt as against 279.9 lakh mt during April-December 2010. Dispatches stood at 285.1 lakh mt in April-December 2011 vis-a-v ... Cement performance for November 2011 03 Dec 2011 The cement production and dispatches of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-November 2011 is 249.07 lakh mt as against 247.68 lakh mt during April-November 2010. Dispatches are at 248.92 lakh mt for the period April ... Cement performance for October 2011 03 Nov 2011 The cement production and dispatches of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-October 2011 were 218.68 lakh mt and 218 lakh mt, which is marginally lower vis-à-vis 220.99 lakh mt and 220.33 lakh mt respectively for t ... Grasim reports improved performance for Q2FY12 22 Oct 2011 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, has reported good results for the 2nd quarter ended 30th September 2011 supported by improved performance of both Cement and VSF businesses. Net Revenue increased by 28 per cent at Rs.5,774 cr ... Financial results for the quarter ended 30 September 2011 22 Oct 2011 Net sales stood at Rs.3,910 crores as compared to Rs.3,215 crores in the corresponding period of the previous year. Profit before Interest, Depreciation and Tax is Rs.685 crores and Profit after Tax is Rs.279 crores vis-a-vis Rs.476 crores and Rs.116 ... Cement performance for September 2011 05 Oct 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-September 2011 stood at 185.96 lakh mt as against 186.33 lakh mt during April-September 2010. ... Cement performance for August 2011 05 Sep 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-August 2011 stood at 158.3 lakh mt as against 158.1 lakh mt during April-August 2010. ... Cement performance for July 2011 01 Aug 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-July 2011 stood at 128.05 lakh mt as against 128.60 lakh mt during April-July 2010. Dispatches stood at 127.94 lakh mt during April-July 2011 vis-a-vis 128.05 ... Financial Results for the Quarter ended 30 June 2011 27 Jul 2011 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 30 June 2011. The results for Q1FY11 have been recasted to include Samruddhi Cement Limited’s performance for a like- ... Cement performance for June 2011 01 Jul 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-June 2011 stood at 97.04 lakh mt as against 99.71 lakh mt during April-June 2010. Dispatches at 96.60 lakh mt during April-June 2011 vis-a-vis 98.89 lakh mt are ... Cement performance for May 2011 01 Jun 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-May 2011 stood at 64.89 lakh mt as against 68.16 lakh mt during April-May 2010. Dispatches at 64.41 lakh mt in April-May 2011 vis-à-vis 67.33 lakh mt are lower ... Grasim reports excellent results for Q4FY11 11 May 2011 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced excellent results for the 4th quarter ended 31st March 2011 with the highest-ever quarterly profit. The improved performance from VSF business whose quarterly sales were the hi ... UltraTech Cement announces financial results for year ended 31st March 2011 26 Apr 2011 UltraTech Cement, an Aditya Birla Group company today announced its financial results for the year ended 31st March, 2011. The results for the year and the quarter ended 31st March, 2010 have been recast to include Samruddhi Cement Limited’s pe ... Cement performance for March 2011 01 Apr 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-March 2011, has moved up by 3.12% at 384.34 lakh mt as against 372.72 lakh mt during April-March 2010. Dispatches rose by 3.18% at 384.06 lakh mt in April-March ... Cement performance for February 2011 01 Mar 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla company, for the period April-Feb 2011, has moved up by 3.19% at 346.81 lakh mt as against 336.08 lakh mt during April-Feb 2010. Dispatches rose by 3.29% at 346.29 lakh mt in April-Feb 2011 ... Cement performance for January 2011 02 Feb 2011 The cement production of UltraTech Cement, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-January 2011, has moved up by 3.23% at 313.77 lakh mt as against 303.96 lakh mt during April-January 2010. ... UltraTech Cement announces results for the quarter ended 31 December 2010 25 Jan 2011 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 31 December 2010. The results for the corresponding quarter of FY10 have been re-cast to include Samruddhi Cement Limited&r ... Cement performance for December 2010 04 Jan 2011 The Aditya Birla Group Company UltraTech’s Cement production for the period April-December 2010 has moved up by 3.75% at 279.88 lakh mt as against 269.77 lakh mt during April-December 2009. Dispatches rose by 3.92% at 279.60 lakh mt in April-Decemb ... Cement performance for November 2010 01 Dec 2010 The Aditya Birla Group Company – UltraTech’s Cement production for the period April-November 2010 has moved up by 4.25% at 247.67 lakh mt as against 237.57 lakh mt during April-November 2009. Dispatches rose by 4.55% at 246.86 lakh mt in April-No ... Cement performance for October 2010 01 Nov 2010 Production for UltraTech, the Aditya Birla Group company, for the period April-October 2010 has moved up by 5.98% at 220.97 lakh mt as against 208.50 lakh mt during April-October 2009. Dispatches rose by 6.51% at 220.29 lakh mt in April-October 2010 ... UltraTech Cement announces results for the Quarter ended 30 September 2010 26 Oct 2010 UltraTech's performance for the second quarter reflects the first financial results post the amalgamation of Samruddhi Cement Limited with the Company. The results include the performance of Samruddhi with effect from 1 July 2010, which was the A ... Cement performance for September 2010 01 Oct 2010 Production for the Aditya Birla Group company – UltraTech Cement, for the period April-September 2010, hasmoved up by 3.99% at 186.30 lakh mt as against 179.16 lakh mt during April-September 2009. Dispatches rose by 4.18% at 186.10 lakh mt in A ... Cement performance for August 2010 01 Sep 2010 UltraTech’s cement production for the period April-August 2010 has moved up by 4.18% at 158.12 lakh mt as against 151.77 lakh mt during April-August 2009. Dispatches rose by 4.45% at 157.63 lakh mt in April-August 2010 vis-à-vis 150.92 lakh mt in ... Cement performance for July 2010 02 Aug 2010 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-July 2010 has moved up by 4.99% at 128.58 lakh mt as against 122.46 lakh mt during April-July 2009. Dispatches rose by 4.96% at 128.05 lakh mt in April-July 2010 vis-a-vis 122.00 lakh ... Grasim announces results for quarter ended 30 June 2010 31 Jul 2010 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its results for the first quarter ended 30 June 2010. Its consolidated revenue stood at Rs.5,119 crore (Rs.5,134 crore). The revenue was up by 2 per cent, excluding the revenue ... UltraTech Cement announces results for the quarter ended 30 June 2010 29 Jul 2010 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 30 June 2010. ... Cement performance for June 2010 02 Jul 2010 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-June 2010 has moved up by 5.06% at 99.72 lakh mt as against 94.91 lakh mt during April-June 2009. Dispatches rose by 4.12% at 98.89 lakh mt in April-June 2010 vis-a-vis 94.98 lakh ... Cement performance for May 2010 01 Jun 2010 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-May 2010 has moved up by 6.18% at 68.16 lakh mt as against 64.20 lakh mt during April-May 2009. Dispatches rose by 5.89% at 67.33 lakh mt in April-May 2010 vis-a-vis 63.59 lakh mt ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q4 FY2010 20 May 2010 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, has reported improved performance during the fourth quarter of the year ended 31 March 2010, as well as the entire year. These results are given after considering the effect of the demerger of ... Cement performance for April 2010 03 May 2010 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April 2010 has moved up by 6.75% at 33.95 lakh mt as against 31.81 lakh mt during April 2009. Despatches rose by 6.19% at 33.80 lakh mt in April 2010 vis-a-vis 31.83 lakh mt in the corre ... UltraTech Cement announces financial results for year ended 31 March 2010 29 Apr 2010 The company has achieved net revenues of Rs.7,050 crore (Rs.6,383 crore) registering a growth of 10% on the back of higher sales volume. Profit before interest, depreciation and tax was Rs.2,094 crore (Rs.1,810 crore). Profit after tax at Rs.1,093 cr ... Cement performance for March 2010 01 Apr 2010 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-March 2010 has moved up by 15 per cent at 372.71 lakh mt as against 324.18 lakh mt during April-March 2009. Dispatches rose by 15 per cent at 372.22 lakh mt in April-March 2010 vis-a-v ... Cement performance for February 2010 02 Mar 2010 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-February 2010 has moved up by 15.83 per cent at 336.07 lakh mt as against 290.13 lakh mt during April-February 2009. Dispatches rose by 15.72 per cent at 335.26 lakh mt in April-February ... Cement performance for January 2010 02 Feb 2010 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-January 2010 has moved up by 16.52 per cent at 303.95 lakh mt as against 260.86 lakh mt during April-January 2009. Dispatches rose by 16.43 per cent at 303.33 lakh mt in April-Janu ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q3 FY2010 22 Jan 2010 Grasim Industries Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its results for the third quarter ended 31 December 2009. Higher volumes and lower input prices have been the key growth drivers. ... UltraTech Cement announces results for the quarter ended 31 December 2009 16 Jan 2010 The company has achieved net sales of Rs.1,652 crore (Rs.1,631 crore). Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs.414 crore (Rs.451 crore) and profit after tax at Rs.196 crore (Rs.238 crore) were lower by 8% and 18% respectively. ... Cement performance for November 2009 01 Dec 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-November 2009 has moved up by 18.08 per cent at 237.57 lakh mt as against 201.19 lakh mt during April-November 2008. Dispatches rose by 17.68 per cent at 236.12 lakh mt in April-Novemb ... Samruddhi Cement Limited to merge with UltraTech 15 Nov 2009 The Boards of Directors of UltraTech Cement Limited (UltraTech) and Samruddhi Cement Limited (Samruddhi), a wholly owned subsidiary of Grasim Industries Limited (Grasim), at their meetings held today unanimously approved Samruddhi’s merger with ... Cement performance for October 2009 02 Nov 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-October 2009 has moved up by 18.36 per cent at 208.50 lakh mt as against 176.16 lakh mt during April-October 2008. Dispatches moved up 18.03 per cent at 206.84 lakh mt in April-Oct ... The Aditya Birla Group of companies donate Baht 3.5 million for housing in Chiang Mai, Thailand 31 Oct 2009 The Aditya Birla Group of companies in Thailand today gave a donation of Baht 3.5 million to Habitat for Humanity, as BRONZE Level Sponsor at the Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project, The Mekong Build 2009. ... Grasim reports outstanding performance for Q2 FY2010 29 Oct 2009 The cement business posted a robust performance during the quarter gone by. Production, supported by capacity expansion, expanded by 27 per cent at 4.63 million tons. Sales volumes registered an increase of 23 per cent at 4.56 million tons, on the ... UltraTech Cement announces results for the quarter ended 30 September 2009 16 Oct 2009 The company achieved net sales of Rs. 1,541 crore (Rs. 1,396 crore). Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs. 501 crore (Rs. 325 crore) rose by 54 per cent while profit after tax at Rs. 251 crore (Rs. 164 crore) registered a growth of 53 p ... Cement performance for August 2009 02 Sep 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-August 2009 has moved up by 20.30 per cent at 151.77 lakh mt as against 126.16 lakh mt during April-August 2008. Dispatches moved up 19.84 per cent at 150.92 lakh mt in April-August 20 ... Cement performance for July 2009 03 Aug 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-July 2009 has moved up by 16.66 per cent at 122.46 lakh mt as against 104.97 lakh mt during April-July 2008. Dispatches grew by 17.25 per cent at 122.00 lakh mt in April-July 2009 vis- ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q1 FY 2010 28 Jul 2009 Consolidated revenue for the quarter rose by 15 per cent at Rs. 5,123 crore (Rs. 4,448 crore). Net profit was higher by 61 per cent at Rs.1,080 crore (Rs. 672 crore) which included an extraordinary gain of Rs.336 crore (net of tax) arising from the s ... UltraTech Cement announces financial results for the quarter ended 30 June 2009 21 Jul 2009 The company achieved net revenues of Rs. 1,953 crore (Rs. 1,496 crore). Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs. 751 crore (Rs. 472 crore) rose by 59 per cent while profit after tax at Rs. 418 crore (Rs. 265 crore) registered a growth of 5 ... Cement performance for June 2009 01 Jul 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-June 2009 has moved up by 18.91 per cent at 94.91 lakh mt as against 79.81 lakh mt during April-June 2008. Dispatches grew by 19.49 per cent at 94.98 lakh mt in April-June 2009 vis ... Cement performance for May 2009 01 Jun 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-May 2009 has moved up by 18.16 per cent at 64.19 lakh mt as against 54.32 lakh mt during April-May 2008. Dispatches moved up 18.45 per cent at 63.59 lakh mt in April-May 2009 as agains ... Grasim posts impressive results for Q4 FY 2009 19 May 2009 Its consolidated revenues for the quarter rose by 5 per cent to Rs.5,020 crore (Rs.4,765 crore). Cash profit for the quarter at Rs.1,114 crore (Rs.781 crore), was substantially higher by 43 per cent, due to the impressive performance of the cement bu ... Cement performance for April 2009 05 May 2009 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for April 2009 has moved up by 16.38 per cent at 31.84 lakh mt as against 27.35 lakh mt during April 2008. ... UltraTech Cement announces financial results for the year ended 31 March 2009 21 Apr 2009 The company achieved net revenues of Rs.6,383 crore representing a 16 per cent growth contributed by higher sales volume and higher prices, with the latter driven by rising input costs, with consequent fall in margins from 33 per cent in FY 2008 to 2 ... Cement performance for March 2009 01 Apr 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-March 2009 has moved up by 5.94 per cent at 324.14 lakh mt as against 305.96 lakh m ... Cement performance for February 2009 02 Mar 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-February 2009 has moved up by 5.23 per cent at 290.09 lakh mt as against 275.67 lakh mt during April-February 2008. Dispatches grew by 5.25 per cent at 289.71 lakh mt in April-February ... Cement performance for January 2009 02 Feb 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-January 2009 has moved up by 4.77 per cent at 260.86 lakh mt as against 248.97 lakh mt during April-January 2008. Dispatches grew by 4.74 per cent at 260.52 lakh mt in April-Januar ... Grasim announces positive performance for Q3 FY2009 31 Jan 2009 Grasim, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its results for the third quarter ended 31 December, 2008. Its consolidated revenues were higher by 6 per cent at Rs. 4,632 crore (Rs. 4,350 crore). Net profit was lower at Rs. 460 crore (Rs. 721 ... UltraTech reports results for the quarter ended 31 December 2008 19 Jan 2009 Net sales at Rs.1,631 crore is up by 18 per cent compared to Q3FY08 (Rs. 1,380 crore). Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs. 451 crore (Rs. 490 crore) and profit after tax at Rs. 238 crore (Rs. 279 crore) were lower by 8 per cent and 15 ... Cement performance for December 2008 02 Jan 2009 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-December 2008 has moved up by 4.15 per cent at 230.46 lakh mt as against 221.28 lakh mt during April-December 2007. Dispatches grew by 4.41 per cent at 230.46 lakh mt in April-December ... Cement performance for November 2008 01 Dec 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-November 2008 has moved up by 2.76 per cent at 201.19 lakh mt as against 195.80 lakh mt during April-November 2007. Dispatches grew by 3.20 per cent at 200.64 lakh mt in April-November ... Cement performance for October 2008 04 Nov 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-October 2008 has moved up by 1.87 per cent at 176.16 lakh mt as against 172.93 lakh mt during April-October 2007. Dispatches grew by 1.92 per cent at 175.24 lakh mt in April-October 20 ... Grasim announces results for Q2 FY2009 23 Oct 2008 Grasim, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its results for the second quarter ended 30 September 2008. Its consolidated revenues stood at Rs. 4,489 crore (Rs. 3,964 crore). Net profit was lower at Rs. 486 crore (Rs. 620 crore). Viewed in ... UltraTech reports results for the quarter ended 30 September 2008 18 Oct 2008 The company’s net sales increased by 20 per cent from Rs.1,168 crore in Q2FY08 to Rs.1,396 crore. Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs. 325 crore (Rs. 357 crore) and profit after tax at Rs.164 crore (Rs.186 crore) were lower by 9 ... Aditya Birla Group contributes Rs. 5 crore towards flood relief measures in Orissa 07 Oct 2008 As a measure of solidarity with the people of Orissa and to help alleviate the hardships caused by the unprecedented floods, the Aditya Birla Group has contributed Rs. 5 crore. Mr. Ravi Kastia, managing director of Essel Mining, an Aditya Birla Group ... Cement performance for September 2008 01 Oct 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-September 2008 has moved up by 1.37 per cent at 150.06 lakh mt as against 148.04 lakh mt during April-September 2007. Dispatches grew by 1.91 per cent at 149.87 lakh mt in April-Septem ... Cement performance for August 2008 02 Sep 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-August 2008 has moved up by 1.11 per cent at 126.16 lakh mt as against 124.77 lakh mt during April-August 2007. Dispatches moved up 1.51 per cent at 125.93 lakh mt in April-August 2008 ... Cement performance for July 2008 01 Aug 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-July 2008 has moved up by 3.40 per cent at 104.97 lakh mt as against 101.52 lakh mt during April-July 2007. Dispatches grew by 3.09 per cent at 104.05 lakh mt in April-July 2008 vis-a- ... Grasim announces results for Q1 FY 2009 25 Jul 2008 Grasim, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its results for the quarter ended 30 June 2008. The company’s revenues for the quarter were at Rs. 4,430 crore (Rs. 4,060 crore). Net profit was marginally higher at Rs. 672 crore (Rs. 670 cror ... UltraTech announces results for the quarter ended 30 June 2008 18 Jul 2008 For the quarter ended 30 June 2008, the company’s net sales increased by 10 per cent from Rs. 1,360 crore in Q1FY08 to Rs. 1,496 crore. Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs. 472 crore (Rs. 462 crore) and profit after tax at Rs. 26 ... Cement performance for June 2008 02 Jul 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-June 2008 has moved up by 2.20 per cent at 79.81 lakh mt as against 78.09 lakh mt d ... Cement performance for May 2008 02 Jun 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-May 2008 has moved up by 2.33 per cent at 54.32 lakh mt as against 53.08 lakh mt du ... Cement performance for April 2008 02 May 2008 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April 2008 has moved up by 2.17 per cent at 27.35 lakh mt as against 26.77 lakh mt during April 2007. Dispatches grew by 2.24 per cent at 27.10 lakh mt in April 2008 vis-a-vis 26.51 lakh mt in ... Grasim posts impressive results for Q4 FY 2008 29 Apr 2008 Grasim Industries Limited has performed well during the quarter ended 31 March 2008. Revenues increased by 15 per cent from Rs. 4,090 crore to Rs. 4,715 crore. Net profit (before extraordinary gain) was higher by 15 per cent at Rs.644 crore (Rs. 558 ... UltraTech announces financial results for the quarter and year ended 31 March 2008 22 Apr 2008 For the quarter ended 31 March 2008, the company achieved net revenues of Rs.1,602 crore (Rs.1,465 crore). After providing for interest of Rs. 19 crore (Rs. 20 crore), depreciation of Rs. 65 crore (Rs. 60 crore) and tax of Rs. 148 crore (Rs.116 crore ... Cement performance for March 2008 03 Apr 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s Cement production for the period April-March 2008 has moved up by 4.77 per cent at 305.95 lakh mt as against 292.01 lakh mt during April-March 2007. Dispatches grew by 4.47 per cenr at 305.53 lakh mt in April-March 2008 vis ... Cement performance for February 2008 03 Mar 2008 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-February 2008 has moved up by 4.14 per cent at 282.82 lakh mt as against 271.59 lakh mt during April-February 2007. Dispatches grew by 4.02 per cent at 282.41 lakh mt in April-February 2 ... Cement performance for January 2008 02 Feb 2008 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-January 2008 moved up by 3.97 per cent at 255.31 lakh mt as against 245.57 lakh mt during April-January 2007. Dispatches stood at 255.09 lakh mt, reflecting a rise of 3.88 per cent as ... Grasim announces results for Q3 FY 2008 22 Jan 2008 Grasim Industries Limited has posted good results for the third quarter ended 31 December 2007. The improved performance was propelled by its core businesses, viz., cement and viscose staple fibre (VSF). The company's chemical and sponge iron busines ... UltraTech reports results for the quarter ended 31 December 2007 19 Jan 2008 Net sales at Rs.1,382 crore is up by 10 per cent compared to Q3FY07 (Rs.1,260 crore). Profit before interest, depreciation and tax at Rs.489 crore (Rs.397 crore) rose 23 per cent. Profit after tax grew by 32 per cent from Rs. 212 crore to Rs. 279 cro ... Cement performance for December 2007 03 Jan 2008 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-December 2007 has moved up by 4.18 per cent at 226.94 lakh mt as against 217.84 lakh ... Cement performance for November 2007 02 Dec 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-November 2007 has moved up by 4.18 per cent at 200.79 lakh mt as against 192.73 lakh mt during April-November 2006. Dispatches grew by 3.67 per cent at 199.34 lakh mt in April-November 2 ... Cement performance for October 2007 02 Nov 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-October 2007 has moved up by 5.61 per cent at 177.39 lakh mt as against 167.96 lakh mt during April-October 2006. Dispatches grew by 5.21 per cent at 176.37 lakh mt in April-October 2007 ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q2 FY 07-08 27 Oct 2007 Grasim, the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has posted good results for the second quarter ended 30 September, 2007. Cement and Viscose Staple Fibre (VSF), its core businesses, have been the growth drivers. The chemical and sponge iron bu ... UltraTech reports results for the quarter ended 30 September 2007 20 Oct 2007 Net sales at Rs.1,173 crore (Rs.1,005 crore) is up by 17 per cent compared to the corresponding quarter of the previous year. Profit before depreciation, interest and tax at Rs. 355 crore (Rs. 266 crore) grew 33 per cent. Profit after tax rose by 46 ... Cement performance for September 2007 01 Oct 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-September 2007 has moved up by 6.52 per cent at 151.86 lakh mt as against 142.57 lakh mt during April-September 2006. Dispatches grew by 6.02 per cent at 150.83 lakh mt in April-Septembe ... Cement performance for August 2007 03 Sep 2007 The Aditya Birla Group’s cement production for the period April-August 2007 has moved up by 7.32 per cent at 128.02 lakh mt as against 119.29 lakh mt during April-August 2006. Dispatches grew b ... Cement performance for July 2007 01 Aug 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-July 2007 has moved up by 5.33 per cent at 104.26 lakh mt as against 98.99 lakh mt during April-July 2006. Dispatches grew by 5.73 per cent at 103.72 lakh mt in April-July 2007 vis-a-vis ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q1 FY 08 28 Jul 2007 Grasim, an Aditya Birla Group company, has reported good results for the quarter ended 30 June, 2007. VSF and cement businesses which put in a commendable performance, have been the growth enablers. ... UltraTech posts impressive results for the quarter ended 30 June 2007 20 Jul 2007 The capacity expansion at the unit in Andhra Pradesh together with setting up of a split grinding unit and captive power plant is progressing on schedule. Considering the growing demand in the southern markets and the availability of slag, it has bee ... Cement performance for June 2007 02 Jul 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-June 2007 has moved up by 4.24 per cent at 80.36 lakh mt as against 77.09 lakh mt during April-June 2006. Dispatches grew by 3.69 per cent at 79.73 lakh mt in April-June 2007 vis-a-vis 7 ... Cement performance for May 2007 02 Jun 2007 Our cement production for the period April-May 2007 has moved up by 3.35 per cent at 54.63 lakh mt as against 52.86 lakh mt dur ... Cement performance for April 2007 02 May 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement performance for the month of April 2007 has moved up by 3.42 per cent at 29.53 lakh mt as against 28.55 lakh mt during April 2006. ... UltraTech announces financial results for the quarter and year ended 31 March 2007 21 Apr 2007 For the quarter ended 31 March 2007 the company attained net revenues of Rs.1,466 crore (Rs.1,060 crore). After providing for interest at Rs.20 crore (Rs. 22 crore), depreciation at Rs.60 crore (Rs. 60 crore) and tax at Rs.116 crore (Rs.11 crore), th ... Cement performance for March 2007 02 Apr 2007 Our cement production for the period April-March 2007 has moved up by 8.33 per cent at 325.19 lakh mt as against 300.19 lakh mt during April-March 2006. Dispatches grew by 8.46 per cent at 325.63 lakh mt in April-March 2007 vis-a-vis 300.22 lakh mt i ... Cement performance for February 2007 02 Mar 2007 Our cement production for the period April-February 2007 has moved up by 8.56 per cent at 294.06 lakh mt as against 270.86 lakh mt during April-February 2006. Despatches grew by 8.55 per cent at 293.98 lakh mt in April-February 2007 vis-a-vis 270.81 ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for January 2007 02 Feb 2007 Our cement production for the period April-January 2007 has moved up by 5.83 per cent at 245.57 lakh mt as against 232.05 lakh mt during April-Janaury 2006. Dispatches grew by 5.89 per cent at 245.56 lakh mt in April-January 2007 vis-a-vis 231.89 lak ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q3FY 2007 27 Jan 2007 Grasim, the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has posted a commendable performance for the quarter ended 31 December 2006. Increased capacity utilisation, strengthening of operational efficiencies and enriched product mix have been the majo ... UltraTech reports excellent results for quarter ended 31 December 2006 18 Jan 2007 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 31 December 2006. ... Cement performance for December 2007 03 Jan 2007 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-December 2007 has moved up by 4.18 per cent at 226.94 lakh mt as against 217.84 lakh mt during April-December 2006. Dispatches grew by 4.13 per cent at 226.35 lakh mt in April-December 2 ... Aditya Birla Group concludes MoU for Rs.1200 crore cement project in Orissa 10 Nov 2006 Grasim Industries Limited, a flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group and the state government of Orissa concluded an MoU today to set up a 3.5 million tpa integrated cement plant in the Sundergarh District in Orissa. The plant will involve an inve ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for October 2006 01 Nov 2006 Cement production of Aditya Birla Group for the period April-October 2006 moved up by 6.94 per cent at 167.96 lakh mt as against 157.07 lakh mt during April-October 2005. While dispatches moved up 6.94 per cent at 167.63 lakh mt in April-October 2006 ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q2 FY 06-07 18 Oct 2006 Grasim, the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has posted excellent results for the quarter ended 30 September 2006 on the back of superior performance from both its key businesses, viz., cement and viscose staple fibre (VSF). Turnover, gros ... UltraTech reports results for the quarter ended 30 September 2006 16 Oct 2006 traTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 30 September 2006. During the quarter cement volume growth has been on par with the industry. Production rose, coupled with a ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for September 2006 04 Oct 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for September 2006 grew by 17.01 per cent at 23.28 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 18.27 per cent at 23.14 lakh mt over September 2005. ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for August 2006 02 Sep 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's combined despatch of cement and clinker during April/ August 2006 at 127.28 lakh mt is up by 6.6 per cent over the corresponding period last year. ... UltraTech declares 17.5 per cent dividend, an increase of 133 per cent; plans capex of Rs.1424 crore 28 Aug 2006 A dividend of Rs.1.75 per share was declared as well. This is 133 per cent up as compared to Rs.0.75 per share paid in the previous year. The total outgo on account of dividend to be paid to the shareholders inclusive of corporate tax will be Rs.24.8 ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for July 2006 01 Aug 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-July 2006 at 98.99 lakh mt is up by 6.72 per cent vis-a vis 92.76 lakh mt for April-July 2005 and despatches at 98.11 lakh mt reflect a rise of 6.28 per cent as against 92.31 lakh mt. ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q1 FY06-07 29 Jul 2006 Grasim, the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has posted a commendable performance for the quarter ended 30 June 2006. Consolidated revenues at Rs.3,196 crore (Rs.2,474 crore) reflected an increase of 29 per cent. Despite a substantially hi ... UltraTech posts impressive results for Q1 2006-07 25 Jul 2006 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 30 June 2006. The first quarter performance of the company has seen an improved growth in sales and net profit, driven by h ... Grasim's FY06 consolidated audited results 24 Jul 2006 We have filed the company's Consolidated Financial Results (CFS) on 27 April 2006. The same were incorporating the results of UltraTech Cement Limited (UTCL) (a subsidiary of our company) and Narmada Cement Co. Ltd. (NCCL), a subsidiary of UTCL, ... UltraTech announces audited results for year ended 31 March 2006 07 Jul 2006 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, has reported net revenues at Rs.3,299 crore (Rs.2,607 crore) for the financial year ended 31 March 2006. After providing for interest — Rs.90 crore (Rs.107 crore) and depreciation — ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for June 2006 03 Jul 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for June grew by 6.10 per cent at 24.23 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 9.37 per cent at 24.74 lakh mt, over June 2005. ... Cement performance for May 2006 01 Jun 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for May 2006 grew by 3.68 per cent at 26.09 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 7.92 per cent at 28.26 lakh mt, over May 2005. ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for April 2006 03 May 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for April 2006 grew by 8.53 per cent at 26.76 lakh mt as against 24.66 lakh mt during April 2005. ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q4 FY2006 27 Apr 2006 Grasim, the flagship Company of the Aditya Birla Group, has posted excellent performance for the quarter ended 31 March 2006. Consolidated revenues soared by 17 per cent from Rs.2,475 crore to Rs.2,901 crore. Net Profit rose appreciably by 39 per cen ... UltraTech reports results (unaudited) for the quarter ended 31 March 2006 24 Apr 2006 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, has reported net sales of Rs.1,022 crore for the quarter ended 31 March 2006 as against Rs.698 crore for the same period last year, resulting in an effective increase of 31 per cent (after adju ... UltraTech Q4 FY06 results announced 24 Apr 2006 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, has reported net sales of Rs.1,022 crore for the quarter ended 31 March 2006 as against Rs.698 crore for the same period last year, resulting in an effective increase of 31 per cent (after adju ... The Aditya Birla Group board meetings 21 Apr 2006 The meeting of the Board of Directors of the Aditya Birla Group of Companies has been scheduled from 27 April 2006 through 29 April 2006. After the Board meets, the senior management team, led by the Director of the respective business, will make a f ... The Aditya Birla Group posts cement performance for March 2006 03 Apr 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for March grew by 12.72 per cent at 28.53 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 10.87 per cent at 28.62 lakh mt, over March 2005. ... The Aditya Birla Group posts excellent cement performance for February 2006 03 Mar 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for February 2006 grew by 13.34 per cent at 25.24 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 16.06 per cent at 25.35 lakh mt, over February 2005. ... The Aditya Birla Group posts impressive cement performance for January 2006 02 Feb 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for January 2006 grew by 10.30 per cent at 27 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 12.81 per cent at 27.35 lakh mt, over January 2005. ... Grasim announces results for Q3 FY 2006 25 Jan 2006 Grasim, the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has reported a consolidated turnover of Rs.2,503 crore (Rs.2,339 crore) for the quarter ended December 2005. Net profit for the period was Rs.195 crore (Rs. 207 crore). ... UltraTech reports results for 3rd quarter 21 Jan 2006 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company has reported net sales during the quarter at Rs. 783 crore effectively up by 5 per cent (after adjusting the freight and trading sales impact) than the third quarter of the previous year (Rs. 66 ... UltraTech reports excellent results for quarter ended 31 December 2006 18 Jan 2006 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, today announced its unaudited financial results for the quarter ended 31 December 2006. The quarter under review witnessed continued improvement in performance on the back of higher volumes and ... Appointment of Mr Kumar Mangalam Birla as Chairman of the Advisory Committee, Ministry of Company Affairs 11 Jan 2006 Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla, Chairman, Aditya Birla Group, has been appointed as Chairman of the Advisory Committee constituted by the Ministry of Company Affairs. The Committee has been mandated to examine matters arising out of the administration of t ... The Aditya Birla Group posts impressive cement performance for December 2005 03 Jan 2006 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for December 2005 grew by 10.97 per cent at 25.61 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 12.96 per cent at 25.90 lakh mt, over December 2004. ... Cement performance of the Aditya Birla Group for December 2006 03 Jan 2006 The cement production of the Aditya Birla Group for the period April-December 2006 moved up by 6.25 per cent at 217.84 lakh mt as against 205.03 lakh mt during April-December 2005. Despatches grew by 6.27 per cent at 217.37 lakh mt in April-December ... Scheme for amalgamation of Narmada Cement with UltraTech approved 26 Dec 2005 The Board of Directors of UltraTech Cement Limited (UTCL) at its meeting held on 26 December 2005, approved a scheme for the amalgamation ("the Scheme") of Narmada Cement Company Limited (NCCL) with UTCL. NCCL is a subsidiary in which UTCL ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement performance for April- November 2005 03 Dec 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-November 2005 stood at 179.43 lakh mt, up by 7.06 per cent vis-à-vis 167.60 lakh mt during April-November 2004. The Group's dispatches at 178.64 lakh mt reflect a rise of ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement performance for April-October 2005 07 Nov 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-October 2005 stood at 157.07 lakh mt, up by 8.01 per cent vis-à-vis 145.42 lakh mt during April-October 2004. The group's dispatches at 156.76 lakh mt reflect a rise of 7. ... UltraTech results for the quarter ended 30 September 2005 22 Oct 2005 UltraTech Cement Limited reported a 11 per cent increase in revenues at Rs. 635 crore (Rs. 571 crore in the corresponding period last year) for the quarter ended 30 September 2005. The profit after tax stood at Rs. 0.1 crore (compared to a Loss of Rs ... The Aditya Birla Group posts impressive cement performance 01 Sep 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for August 2005 grew by 22.92 per cent at 21.32 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 24.38 per cent at 21.38 lakh mt, over August 2004. ... Highlights of the Chairman's address at UltraTech's fifth AGM 24 Aug 2005 Addressing the shareholders at the UltraTech AGM held in Mumbai today, Mr Kumar Mangalam Birla, the Chairman, said that the growth in revenues and earnings over the last year had indeed been encouraging. ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement performance for April-July 2005 03 Aug 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for the period April-July 2005 stood at 92.76 lakh mt, up by 7.86 per cent vis-à-vis 86 lakh mt during April-July 2004. The Group's dispatches at 92.24 lakh mt reflect a rise of 7.64 per cent ... UltraTech posts impressive results for the quarter ended 30 June 2005 25 Jul 2005 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group company, has posted excellent results for the quarter ended 30 June 2005. Sales and net profit have grown impressively, driven by increased domestic off-take and improved domestic and export realisation ... The Aditya Birla Group cement performance for June 2005 04 Jul 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for June 2005 grew by 13.49 per cent at 22.85 lakh mt, while dispatches rose by 9.79 per cent at 22.62 lakh mt, over June 2004. ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement performance for May 2005 02 Jun 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production for May 2005 grew by 14.01 per cent at 25.17 lakh mt, while despatches rose by 14.21 per cent at 24.78 lakh mt. ... Cement production / dispatch numbers for April 2005 03 May 2005 The Aditya Birla Group cement production grew by 8.79 per cent at 24.67 lakh mt for April 2005. Grasim's cement production was reported at 12.01 lakh mt while UltraTech stood at 12.66 lakh mt. ... Grasim reports excellent performance for Q4FY 2007 25 Apr 2005 Grasim, an Aditya Birla Group company, has posted excellent performance for the quarter ended 31 March 2007. Consolidated revenues increased by 40 per cent from Rs.2,926 crore to Rs.4,107 crore. Net profit rose by 60 per cent from Rs.349 crore to Rs. ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement figures for March 2005 02 Apr 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production at 262.72 lakh MT in April-March 2005 is up by 5.61 per cent over last year. Grasim's cement production stood at 133.50 lakh MT and UltraTech's at 129.21 lakh MT. ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement figures for February 2005 03 Mar 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production at 237.41 lakh mt in April to February 2005 is up by 5.15 per cent over the corresponding period last year. Grasim's cement production stood at 121.17 lakh mt and UltraTech's at 116.24 lakh mt .< ... The Aditya Birla Group's cement performance for January 2005 02 Feb 2005 The Aditya Birla Group's cement production was 215.15 lakh mt in April to January 2005 which is 5.62 per cent ahead of the same period last year. Grasim cement production stood at 110.18 lakh mt and UltraTech cement production at 104.97 lakh mt.< ... Grasim reports excellent Q3 FY05 results 28 Jan 2005 Grasim, the flagship Company of the Aditya Birla Group, has posted excellent results for the quarter ended 31 December 2004. Turnover, gross profit and net profit, recorded substantive increases over the corresponding quarter. While turnover at Rs. 1 ... UltraTech Board meets for Q3 results on 25 January 20 Jan 2005 The Boards of Directors of the Aditya Birla Group Companies have convened meetings from 24 January 2005 to 29 January 2005 to take on record the unaudited results for Q3 FY05. ... Grasim cement perfomance for December 2004 03 Jan 2005 The team at UltraTech constantly interacts with the media in order to ensure that its stakeholders and the society are well informed about its activities. A lot of these interactions directly lead to press reports. Though the content of the coverage ... Grasim and UltraTech Cement production figures for November 2004 03 Dec 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has stated that cement production for November 2004 stood at 11.10 lakh mt, moved up by 9.12 per cent as against 10.17 lakh mt during November 2003. T ... Grasim and UltraTech Cement Ltd production figures and dispatches for October 2004 02 Nov 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has stated that cement production for the month of October 2004 stood at 11.42 lakh mt, moved up by 8.39 per cent as against 10.53 lakh mt during Octo ... UltraTech results for Q2 FY05 26 Oct 2004 UltraTech Cement Limited, an Aditya Birla Group Company, has reported revenues at Rs. 587.8 crore for the quarter ended 30 September 2004. After providing for interest – Rs. 26.9 crore and depreciation – Rs. 64.9 crore (includin ... L&T Cement is now UltraTech Cement 21 Oct 2004 Launching UltraTech Cement, the new name of L&T Cement, in Mumbai today, Mr. Kumar Mangalam Birla, Chairman, UltraTech Cement Ltd, stated that "nothing has changed except the name. So essentially what was earlier L&T cement, now trans ... Grasim and UltraTech Cement Ltd. production figures and dispatches for September 2004 01 Oct 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has stated that cement production and dispatches for September 2004 stood at 11.03 lakh mt and 11.62 lakh mt respectively, moved up by 6.35 per cent a ... Grasim and UltraTech Cement Ltd production figures and dispatches for August 2004 02 Sep 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has stated that cement production and dispatches for the month of August 2004 stood at 9.46 lakh mt and 9.40 lakh mt respectively, lower by (-)0.46 pe ... Grasim and UltraTech Cement Ltd. production figures and dispatches for July 2004 04 Aug 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has stated that cement production and dispatches for July 2004 stood at 11.61 lakh MT and 11.37 lakh MT respectively, registering a growth of 14.36 pe ... L&T completes cement restructuring; Grasim acquires majority stake in UltraTech 06 Jul 2004 Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T) and Grasim Industries Limited (Grasim) today announced that the implementation process of the demerger of the cement division of L&T has been completed, and Grasim has acquired majority stake in UltraTech ... Grasim cement production at 10.32 lakh MT; dispatches at 10.52 lakh MT for June 2004 01 Jul 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has stated that cement production for the period April-June 2004 moved up by 2.42 per cent at 32.19 lakh MT as against 31.43 lakh MT during April-June ... Overwhelming response to Grasim's open offer to the shareholders of UltraTech CemCo Ltd. 24 Jun 2004 There has been an overwhelming response to "the 30% open offer" made by Grasim Industries Ltd (Grasim) for equity shares of UltraTech Cement Ltd (UltraTech) which closed today. The cement business of Larsen & Toubro Limited was recen ... Grasim cement production up by 6.21% and dispatches up by 6.49% in April - March, 2004 02 Apr 2004 Grasim, the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group, has reported a rise in its cement production by 6.21% at 127.19 lakh MT for the period April - March 2004, as against 119.75 lakh MT during the ... Grasim cement production at 11.23 lakh MT; up 18.11%. Dispatches at 11.15 lakh MT; rise by 16.49% for February 2004 02 Mar 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has reported a rise of 18.11% in cement production at 11.23 lakh MT for the month of February 2004, while dispatches at 11.15 lakh at MT are up by 16. ... Grasim cement production at 11.24 lakh MT; up 3.61%. Dispatches at 11.19 lakh MT; rise by 3.08% for January 2004 03 Feb 2004 Grasim, the Aditya Birla Group flagship Company, has reported a rise of 3.61% in cement production, at 11.24 lakh mt for the month of January 2004, while dispatches at 11.19 lakh at mt are up by 3.08 ...

Ultratech Cement UltraTech is India's largest exporter of cement clinker spanning export markets in countries across the Indian Ocean, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. UltraTech and its subsidiaries have a presence in 5 countries through 11 integrated plants, 1 white cement plant, 1 clinkerisation plant, 15 grinding units, 2 rail and 3 coastal terminals and 101 RMC plants. Most of the plants have ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 certification. In addition, two plants have received ISO 27001 certification and four have received SA 8000 certification. The certification process is currently underway for the remaining plants. The company exports over 2.5 million tonnes per annum, which is about 30 per cent of the country's total exports. UltraTech's products include Ordinary Portland cement, Portland Pozzolana cement and Portland blast-furnace slag cement. UltraTech Cement is the ultimate 360� building materials destination, providing an array of products ranging from grey cement to white cement, from building products to building solutions and an assortment of ready mix concretes catering to varied needs and applications.

Ultra Tech Cement Limited vs Alaknanda Cement Pvt.Ltd. And ... on 28 June, 2011 Bench: S. J. Kathawalla 1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1183 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.743 OF 2009 Ultra Tech Cement Limited Plaintiff versus Alaknanda Cement Pvt.Ltd. and another Defendants Mr.Veerendra Tulzapurkar, Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Jamsandekar i/by India Law Services for plaintiff. Mr.D.D.Madon, Sr.Counsel a/w Mr.Hemang Engineer i/by Gordhandas & Fozdar for defendants. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 4th March 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 28th June 2011 JUDGMENT : 1. The issue to be decided in the above Notice of Motion is whether the defendants by using the trade mark "ULTRA TUFF" are guilty of infringing the plaintiff's trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" and/or are guilty of passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff. 2. Briefly set out hereinbelow are the relevant facts in the matter. 3. The plaintiff is a company carrying on the business, inter alia, in the field of manufacturing and marketing of `Cement' and other allied products. The first defendant is a private limited company carrying on the 2 business of goods, inter alia, Cement and building materials. The second defendant is a sole proprietary concern operating as a licensee of the first defendant and carrying on business of goods, inter alia, of cement products. 4. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" registered under number 1326528 in respect of `cement of all types, building materials (non-metallic), non- metallic rigid pipes for building, asphalt, pitch and bitumen, non-metallic transportable building, monuments, not of metal" specified in Class-19 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 (`the Rules') under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (`The Act') and the same is valid and subsisting. 5. According to the plaintiff, the words "ULTRATECH CEMENT" is a distinctive trade mark forming part of the corporate name, trade name, trade style and business name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's cement bags have a colour scheme wherein the trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" is depicted in bold black font, having a distinctive get up, lay out and colour scheme and placement of the ISI certification logo appearing on one side of the cement bag. 6. According to the plaintiff, they are using the said trade mark and corporate name, trade name openly, continuously and extensively since the year 2004 in India in respect of "cement". The products sold under the registered trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" consists of the cement and other agnate and cognate goods. According to the plaintiff it has spent considerable time and amount to popularize the said trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice". The said trade mark has been used by the plaintiff on an extensive scale in respect of cement. The cement sold, supplied and/or offered for sale by the plaintiff dealing with the trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" has acquired a vast and enviable reputation by virtue 3 of its intrinsic quality and superiority. The said trade mark has therefore come to be associated solely and exclusively with the plaintiff amongst traders and members of the public. By virtue of the popularity of the goods of the plaintiff, there is considerable care and skill exercised by them in manufacturing and marketing the same and the trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" has become distinctive of the plaintiff's goods, which has come to be associated exclusively with the plaintiff, by the members of the industry, trade and public. It is submitted that during the course of the uninterrupted business, the said trade mark and trade name of the plaintiff has become well known in the trade and to the public at large, for the excellent quality and superiority of the goods. Consequently the plaintiff is solely and exclusively entitled to use the trade mark 'ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" to the exclusion of others. A statement of sales turn over of the plaintiff's goods i.e. cement bearing trade mark 'ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 and a statement of advertisement and publicity expenses incurred by the plaintiff during the said period duly certified by the plaintiff's Chartered Account is annexed and marked as Exhibit-C to the plaint. 7. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff came across an advertisement in a daily local newspaper "SAKAL" dated 24th May 2008, published by the second defendant. The advertisement pertained to the requirement for "Dealers for Cement Sales in Pune and Surrounding Areas" and "Marketing Executives and Officers having experience of at least 3-4 years in cement sales" and depicted the mark "ULTRA TUFF CEMENT" in bold black. A copy of the said advertisement is annexed and marked as Exhibit-D to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, subsequently the plaintiff got hold of an almost identical product manufactured and sold by the defendant no.1 under the impugned mark/label "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" which mark is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice", used by the plaintiff in respect of cement. According to the 4 plaintiff with an ulterior motive to come as close as possible to the plaintiff's goods the gunny bag used by the defendants also has identical placement of its mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" with identical colour scheme of white and/or off-white and also the placement of impugned mark, font size of words "ULTRATUFF CEMENT", up to the minutest details of pale yellow strips appearing on extreme left and right sides of the gunny bags has been blatantly copied. Also the placement of the name and address of the defendant no.1 at the bottom of the gunny bag along with the quality "Portland Pozzolana Cement" placed on the top right is identical to the plaintiff's gunny bag. The placement of ISI certification logo on the defendants gunny bag also appears at an identical place as that of the plaintiff with an ISI number. It is thus submitted that the defendants motive is clearly to pass off their goods as that of the plaintiff's goods and trade upon the reputation and good will of the plaintiff. 8. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant has copied all the essential features of the plaintiff's registered trade mark. The words "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" are identical with and/or are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT". The impugned trade mark is structurally, visually, phonetically and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's prior adopted and registered trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT" which is likely to cause confusion and/or association in the minds of the consumers with average intelligence and normal imperfect recollection, as to the source or origin of the goods. The defendants are, therefore, infringing on the plaintiff's registered trade mark and/or trying to pass off their goods and/or enabling others to pass off their goods as and for those of the plaintiff's goods. It is submitted that the use by the defendants of an identical label not only constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's registered trade mark but also the trade name/corporate name of the plaintiff company is being infringed. 9. According to the plaintiff, under the circumstances, by its letter 5 dated 28th May 2008, the plaintiff called upon the defendant no.2 to seize and desist from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or howsoever dealing in cement products or any other products under the impugned mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" or any other logo deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" and/or to pass off or to enable others to pass off the defendants' products as and for the products of the plaintiff. The first defendant in its reply to the said notice through their advocate's letter dated 12th June 2008 denied the contentions contained in the plaintiff's letter dated 28th May 2008. The plaintiff through it's advocate sent a rejoinder letter dated 23rd June 2008 to the defendant no.1's letter dated 12th June 2008 and reiterated it's claims mentioned in the notice dated 28th May 2008. The first defendant by its advocate's letter dated 14th July 2008 once again denied the contentions raised by the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit and took out the above Notice of Motion No.1183 of 2009 seeking ad-interim and interim reliefs. By an order dated 20th July 2009, the application of the plaintiff for ad-interim relief was rejected. The Notice of Motion is now taken up for hearing and final disposal. 10. The defendants filed their affidavit-in-reply to the Notice of Motion dated 7th September 2009. According to the defendants, in or about July 2006 the defendant no.1 conceived and adopted the trade mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" in respect of all types of cement varieties i.e. Ordinary Portland Cement (also known as OP) and Portland Pozzolana Cement (PP or Fly Ash Based Cement). The defendant no.2 is a partnership firm and one of the directors of the defendant no.1 is a partner of defendant no.2 and defendant no.2 is using the said trade mark under the permission of defendant no.1. It is submitted that the goods as manufactured and marketed by the defendants are sold in gunny bags which bear a distinct design, get up and colour scheme which is totally new and novel. The trade mark "ULTRATUFF" is depicted in a distinctive manner and the word "ULTRA" is appearing above the word "TUFF" and 6 letter `T' of word `TUFF' is starting from the foot of letter `A" of the word `ULTRA'. The gunny bag bears the colour combination of red and black with a white background. 11. According to the defendants, the Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed on the following grounds :- (i) The present suit is filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay. No reasons are given for not filing the present suit for more than one year after the plaintiff's advocates addressed correspondence to the defendants; (ii) The plaintiff has suppressed the fact that Grasim Industries is the registered proprietor under Registration No.1244745 of the trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT"; (iii) The plaintiff has suppressed the fact that the plaintiff is granted registration for the Trade Mark Type `Device'. The plaintiff is not granted registration as a `Word Mark' for the words "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice"; (iv) The registration granted to the plaintiff does not confer any exclusive right to the plaintiff in the matter "ULTRA" and "ULTRATECH"; (v) The plaintiff's registered trade mark consists of several matters namely "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice". The words contained in the plaintiff's trade mark namely "ULTRA" and "ULTRATECH" are separately registered by other proprietors; (vi) That in view of the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('the Act'), the registration granted to the plaintiff does not confer any exclusive right in the matter "ULTRA" and "ULTRATECH" which are forming only a part of the whole of the plaintiff's registered trade 7 mark; (vii) That the words "ULTRA" AND "ULTRATECH" are common to the trade and are otherwise of a non-distinctive character as is evident from the Search Report dated 7th April 2009 annexed at Exhibit-1 to the reply; (viii) That the word "ULTRA" or "ULTRATECH" has not acquired any distinctiveness qua the plaintiff's goods. The plaintiff's trade mark has not acquired any secondary significance and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any monopoly rights in a trade mark which contains the word "ULTRA" or "ULTRATECH"; (ix) That the prefix "ULTRA" being a common word to the trade is a descriptive word and combination thereof with a descriptive word "TECH" that denotes technical is not distinctive of the plaintiff's goods; (x) That the word "ULTRA" itself stands registered under No. 700622 dated 5th March 1996 in respect of identical goods in the name of "Ultra Tile Private Limited" based in Chennai who claims to have used the same from 1st August 1993 and the trade mark "Ultratech" is registered under No.1322426 in the name of Rajiv Gupta who has claimed user from 6th November 1996. The date of the registration application by Rajiv Gupta is 29th November 2004 which is prior to the plaintiff's application date of 17th December 2004; (xi) That the trade marks "Ultracast" and "UltraBond Eco" are also registered trade marks which have been registered earlier and prior to the use by the plaintiff of its trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice". The plaintiff has, therefore, adopted a trade mark, of which there is an owner, who had earlier made an assertion of ownership by registration or by user and hence the plaintiff cannot claim to be the proprietor of the trade mark; 8 (xii) The plaintiff has only copied somebody else's trade mark and therefore cannot claim to be the owner of or proprietor of the word "ULTRATECH CEMENT" and maintain an action of passing off. This contention of the defendants is supported by an unreported order of this Court (Coram : S.A.Bobde, J.), dated 21st/22nd April 2003 in Notice of Motion No.506 of 2003 in Suit No.550 of 2003 in the matter of Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited; (xiii) That the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of passing off as the defendants' trade mark is structurally, visually and phonetically different from the plaintiff's label. There is no similarity in the plaintiff's label and the plaintiff's gunny bags in which the cement is sold. 12. The defendants have further submitted that the sale of cement under the trade mark "ULTRATUFF" by the defendant no.1 for the period between 1.7.2006 and 31.3.2007 is Rs.1,40,19,788/-, for the period 2007-2008 is Rs.3,40,51,722/- and for the period 2008-2009 is Rs. 2,72,52,517/- and for the year 2009-2010 is Rs.2,08,59,304/-. The sale of cement by defendant no.2 for the year 2008-2009 is Rs.2,55,14,607/- and for the year 2009-2010 is Rs.4,26,83,567/-. The defendants have in support of their contentions relied on the certificates and statements of turn over as well as copies of bills/invoices which are annexed as Exhibits-3A to 3C, 4 and 5A to 5D to their affidavit-in-reply. The defendants have also submitted that they have incurred advertisement expenses for promoting the sale of cement under the trade mark "ULTRATUFF" to the tune of Rs.4.30 lakhs, Rs.6.70 lakhs, Rs.5,25 lakhs and Rs.5.46 lakhs for the years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 respectively. The certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant of the defendants in respect thereof are annexed as Exhibits-6A to 6C and 7 to the affidavit-in-reply of the defendant no.1. The defendants have also relied on an additional representation made by them to the Trade Marks Registrar wherein the date of user of the trade mark 9 "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" is shown as 5th January 2007. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that for the aforestated reasons the Notice of Motion be dismissed with costs. 13. The plaintiff filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 12th June 2009, wherein they have denied/disputed the aforestated submissions advanced on behalf of the defendants. 14. Mr.Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff, in rejoinder pointed out that the defendants have stated in paragraph 17 of their affidavit in reply that the defendant no.1 had conceived and adopted the trade mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" in the month of July 2006. The defendants have also stated that they have made an application for registration of the trade mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" on 18th March 2008. The application for registration of the trade mark "ULTRATUFF", made by the defendant is annexed to the reply at page 84. In the application for registration of the trade mark "ULTRATUFF", the defendants have claimed user of the impugned trade mark since 5th January 2007. The claim of user by the defendants is therefore different in paragraph 17 of the affidavit-in-reply and in the application made for registration of the trade mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT". He further submitted that defendants have stated in their affidavit-in-reply that they are using the impugned trade mark "ULTRATUFF" since July 2006 and have produced the purported invoices to prove the same. The plaintiff has in the rejoinder pointed out that the invoices produced by the defendants are fabricated. Mr.Tulzapurkar took me through each and every invoice annexed to the reply and has pointed out how the defendants have subsequently added the word "ULTRATUFF" on copies of the bills/invoices relied upon by them. He has submitted that the defendants have not been honest with the Court and on this ground alone the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as sought for by them against the defendants. 10 15. Mr.Tulzapurkar further submitted that for deciding the question of deceptive similarity between two trade marks what is required to be considered by the Court are the essential features of the trade marks, and no microscopic examination is permitted nor any etymological meaning of the words used need to be considered. The Court has to consider the question from the point of view of an ordinary man of average intelligence. The words other than the one which form essential features are to be ignored. The essential features namely the word marks/trade marks "ULTRATECH" and "ULTRATUFF" are to be compared and as stated above, the same are phonetically, visually and structurally similar. Mr.Tulzapurkar submitted that considering the class of purchasers, there can be no doubt that there can be deception and/or confusion and/or there is likelihood of association. The plaintiff's registered trade mark having been fixed in the minds of the purchasers, is bound to be recalled by an unwary purchaser when he sees the impugned mark particularly in respect of identical goods. The purchaser is bound to be put in the state of wonderment if totally not confused or deceived. In support of these contentions Mr.Tulzapurkar relied on the decisions of this Court in case of James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. Vs. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. (AIR-1951-BOM-147) and M/s.Hiralal Prabhudas Vs. M/s.Ganesh Trading Co. (AIR-1984-BOM-218) and the decisions of the Apex Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. Chidambaram Vs. James Chadwick and Bros. (AIR-1953-SC-357) and Amritdhara Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta (AIR-1963-SC-449). 16. Dealing with the contention of the defendants that in view of the provisions of section 17(2) of the Act the registration granted to the plaintiff does not confer any exclusive right in the matter of "ULTRA" and "ULTRATECH" which form only a part of the whole of the plaintiff's registered trade mark, Mr.Tulzapurkar has submitted that all that section 17 of the Act lays down is that the registration of a trade mark shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade mark so registered, unless the part is a subject matter of a 11 separate application for registration or is separately registered or is distinctive. Sub section 2(a)(i) and 2(a)(ii) and sub section (b) of Section 17 of the Act show that the three things mentioned therein are disjunctive and not cumulative. In the present case, though the word "ULTRATECH" is not separately registered nor is the subject of a separate application, the same being distinctive, the case falls under sub section 2(b) of section 17. Hence, the defendants' contention that the plaintiff cannot maintain an action for infringement is unsustainable, firstly, for the reason that the essential features are required to be considered and secondly, the word "ULTRATECH" is distinctive. The fact that the plaintiff's mark is registered without any disclaimers or limitations, itself proves that the word "ULTRATECH" is a distinctive mark and the plaintiff has satisfied the criteria laid down in sections 9 and 11 of the said Act. Mr.Tulzapurkar in support of his contention relied on paragraph 35 of the decision of the learned Single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Three-N-Products Private Ltd. Vs. Emami Ltd; GA Nos.2951 and 3976 of 2007 and CS No.204 of 2007 decided on 26th August 2008 and relied upon by the defendants. It is therefore, submitted that the defendants reliance on section 17 of the Act is misplaced. 17. Mr.Tulzapurkar in response to the defendants contention that the word "ULTRA" is common to the trade and therefore there is no likelihood of deception or confusion, has submitted that it is now well established that mere presence of a mark in the register does not prove its user. The person relying on such trade marks having common element is required to establish extensive user. The defendants have failed to prove the extensive user of the mark containing the word "ULTRA". In support of this submission Mr.Tulzapurkar has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (AIR-1960-SC-142) and the decisions of this Court in Pidilite Industries Limited Vs. S.M.Associates 2004(28)-PTC-193 and M/s.D.R.Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. J.R.Industries (AIR-2008-BOM-122). Mr.Tulzapurkar has further submitted that the defendants themselves 12 have applied for registration of the impugned trade mark containing the word "ULTRATUFF". The defendants are therefore now estopped from contending that the plaintiff's mark containing the word "ULTRATECH" is descriptive or common to the trade. In support of this submission he has laid reliance on the decision of Automatic Electric Ltd. Vs. R.K.Dhawan (1999-PTC-81) which decision was approved by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. Vs. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science and Culture (MIPR 2008(3)-0082). 18. Mr.Tulzapurkar has next submitted that the plaintiff has established the reputation of its mark. The plaintiff by placing the figures pertaining to sales and advertisement expenses in respect of its trade mark "ULTRATECH" has established the reputation of its mark. The plaintiff's case for passing off is based on the deception and confusion caused by the impugned trade mark of which the word "ULTRATUFF" forms an essential part and which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark of which the essential feature is the word "ULTRATECH", both the essential features being very close to each other. The goods are ordered with reference to the word marks. The defendants contention that the gunny bags in which cement is sold by the plaintiff and the defendants are different and therefore there is no question of passing off, is unsustainable. Mr.Tulzapurkar has further submitted that the defendants are the subsequent adopter of the impugned mark as their application for registration shows that the mark is used since 5th January 2007 i.e. almost two years after the plaintiff started using its mark. The defendants were aware of the plaintiff's mark and adopted the impugned mark with full knowledge and once the impugned mark is found to be similar, then the defendants cannot rely on the user made after knowledge of the plaintiff's mark. It is the defendants' case that they have adopted the impugned mark after full inquiry. Thus, the defendants adopted the mark with full knowledge of the plaintiff's mark and therefore cannot raise any plea in equity. In support of this submission Mr.Tulzapurkar has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bal Pharma 13 Ltd. Vs. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 2002(24)-PTC-226 (Bom)(DB). 19. Mr.Tulzapurkar has next submitted that the defendants contention that the plaintiff has copied somebody else's mark is also not sustainable. Firstly, the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark. As held by this Court in case of Podar Tyres Vs. Bedrock Sales Corporation Limited (AIR-1993-BOM-237), the validity of registration cannot be raised at this stage. Secondly, even if the mark "ULTRATECH" is registered in the name of Rajiv Gupta, the same is in respect of Plywood, Block Boards, Flush Doors etc. which goods are different from the goods for which the plaintiff's mark is registered. Thirdly, the registration of the mark in the name of Rajiv Gupta cannot be a defense to the plaintiff's action both for infringement and passing off against the defendants. The effect of registration in the name of Rajiv Gupta is that the plaintiff cannot complain of infringement against Rajiv Gupta in view of the provisions of Section 30(e) of the Act. The registered proprietor has a right to prevent any other person from using a similar mark. 20. Mr.Tulzapurkar has further submitted that there is no equity in favour of the defendants. The invoices produced by the defendants are fabricated as is clear from the copies annexed at pages 56 to 71 of the affidavit-in-reply. The word "ULTRATUFF" is superimposed on the said invoices. It is pertinent to note that the certificate annexed at page 72 does not show the advertisement expenses incurred in respect of the goods sold under the impugned mark. Firstly, the said certificate is silent as to the mark for which the expenses are incurred. Secondly, the said expenses cannot be in respect of the impugned mark as the said figures are for the period from July 2006 when on the defendants own showing, their user in the application for registration is from January 2007. As the defendants have come to the Court with fabricated documents, they are not entitled to raise any plea in equity so as to avoid an injunction being granted. Mr.Tulzapurkar in support of this submission has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gujarat Bottling Vs. Hindustan 14 Coca Cola (AIR-1995-SC-2372). 21. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the defendants and the case law cited by the parties. From Exhibit-A to the plaint at page 24 it is clear that the plaintiff's trade mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" was registered as a label mark on 17th December 2004 and that the said trade mark was used by the plaintiff since 31st October 2004. Exhibit-C to the plaint is the copy of certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff wherein it is certified that the plaintiff M/s.Ultra Tech Cement Limited has incurred the following amounts towards advertisement expenses for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 : Year Amount (Rs. Crs.) 2005-2006 37.46 2006-2007 62.23 2007-2008 75.62 It is further certified by the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff that following are the sales volume in Million Metric Tonnes and Turnover in crores of the plaintiff for the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. Year Sales Volume Turnover (Million MT) (Rs.Crs.) 2005-2006 15.55 3299.45 2006-2007 17.68 4910.52 2007-2008 17.11 5509.22 The defendants have submitted that the claim of the plaintiff that they have been using the mark "ULTRATECH CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" since 31st October 2004 is not correct. However, it is established from the certificate issued by the Chartered Account of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is selling the cement under the brand name "ULTRATECH 15 CEMENT The Engineer's Choice" at least from the year 2005. 22. The defendant no.1 in its affidavit-in-reply dated 25th April 2009 has alleged that it is manufacturing and selling the cement under the trade mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" since July 2006. However, in the application/representation dated 18th March 2008 (Exhibit-9 to the affidavit-in-reply of the defendants) the date of user of the mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" is shown as 5th January 2007. The plaintiff has relied on the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant of the company setting out the cement sales figures of the company for the financial years 2006-2007 to 2008-2009. All the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant in respect of the defendant no.1 are dated 25th April 2009. The Chartered Accountant of the defendant no.2 has also issued a certificate dated 24th April 2009 certifying the sales figures during the period 1.6.2008 to 31.3.2009. Admittedly the defendant no.1 is also manufacturing cement under the brand name "SURYA" from the year 1999-2000. However, in the said certificates it is no where mentioned that the sales figures as well as advertisement expenditure shown in the certificates, issued by the Chartered Account pertain to "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" and not to "SURYA CEMENT". In fact in support of the contention that the defendant no.1 started manufacturing and selling "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" since July 2006, the defendant no.1 in paragraph 30 of its affidavit-in-reply has stated "hereto annexed and marked as "Exhibit 5A to Ex.5P" are bill copies having reference to the Trade Mark "ULTRATUFF" of defendant no.1." A perusal of Exhibits 5A to 5P shows that the said invoices are fabricated and the word "ULTRATUFF" is superimposed on the said invoices. The plaintiff has pointed out in its affidavit-in-rejoinder that the said bills/invoices relied upon by the defendants are fabricated. The defendants having realized that they have alleged in their affidavit-in-reply that they started using the mark "ULTRATUFF" since July 2006, whereas in their application for registration of the trade mark "ULTRATUFF CEMENT" dated 18th March 2008 they have admitted the user of the impugned trade mark only since 16 5th January 2007, made an application to the trade mark registry on 11th September 2009 for carrying out the correction in their application by rectifying the date of user from 7th January 2007 to 6th July 2006. Since it was obvious from the bills annexed to the affidavit-in-reply at Exhibits-5A to 5P that the word "ULTRATUFF" was subsequently added on the copies of the bills retained by the defendant no.1, this Court directed the defendant no.1 to produce before this Court all their bill books. Upon perusal of the said bill books this Court noted that the defendant no.1 has on every bill added the word "ULTRATUFF" before the word "CEMENT". This Court therefore, by its order dated 27th January 2011 directed the defendants to file an affidavit setting out the brand names under which the defendants have manufactured and sold cement/clinker since the year 1996 and as to who has overwritten "ULTRATUFF" in the column "Description and Specifications of the Goods" in the carbon copies of invoices of defendant no.1, at what stage the said overwriting was effected and whether the original invoices also bear such overwriting. In view thereof, an affidavit dated 16th February 2011 of Shri Kamal Nayan Poddar, Director of defendant no.1 is filed. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said affidavit are reproduced hereunder :- "4. I say that Defendant no.1 used to resell cement manufactured by large cement companies. Thereafter, sometime in 1999-2000, Defendant No.1 also started manufacturing and selling cement under the name "SURYA". From the year 2006-2007, Defendant no.1 started manufacturing and selling cement under the name "Ultra Tuff" cement. 5. For the purpose of filing this affidavit, I enquired with the office staff of Defendant No.1 regarding the issuance of bills/invoices. I was informed that initially, on the bills/invoices issued by the office staff of Defendant No.1, the description of goods was mentioned only as cement. Inadvertently, this practice of not stating the brand name on the bills/ invoices continued even after Defendant No.1 started selling cement under the name "Ultra Tuff" cement. 6. As the sale of cement under the name "Ultra Tuff" cement started to increase, it was felt necessary to seek protection of the trademark by applying for registration of 17 the trademark. In the beginning of the year 2008, Defendant No.1 made enquiries for taking steps for registration of the trademark. Defendant No.1 was informed by their Trade mark attorney that it would be necessary to mention in the trade mark application the date of user and also to provide information to the Trade mark Registry regarding the sales of cement under the name "Ultra Tuff" cement. 7. In order to ascertain the date of user and actual sales and to thereafter provide the aforesaid information to the Trade mark Registry, the office staff of Defendant No.1 in the beginning of the year 2008 undertook the exercise of identifying the bill books which set out the sales of cement under the name "Ultra Tuff" cement. The office staff added the words "Ultra Tuff" on the bill books for the sole purpose of identifying the sales of cement under the name "Ultra Tuff" cement. This information was then relied upon for the purpose of preparing and filing of the Defendant No.1's application in March 2008 for registration of the trademark "Ultra Tuff" cement." 23. Admittedly, sometime in 1999-2000 defendant no.1 started manufacturing and selling cement under the brand name 'Surya'. The Ld. Advocate appearing for the defendants has informed the court that defendant no.1 continued and still continues to sell cement under the brand name Surya even after the defendant no.1 started manufacturing cement under the name ULTRATUFF CEMENT. The Director of the defendant no.1, Shri Vishal Ashok Kanodia in his affidavit-in-reply dated 25th April 2009, as set out hereinabove relied upon the copies of the bills issued by the defendant no.1 and has categorically stated on oath as follows :- "Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT "5/A to Exhibit 5/P" are bill copies having reference to the trade mark Ultratuff of Defendant No.1". A mere glance at the said bills shows that the word ULTRATUFF is subsequently superimposed on the said bills and that too in different ink. However, Shri Kanodia who is the Deponent of the Affidavit-in-Reply 18 dated 25th April, 2009 not only did not give any clarification as is now sought to be given but instead relied on the said bills and more particularly relied on the reference made therein to the trademark ULTRATUFF. The bills annexed to the affidavit-in-reply dated 25th April 2009 pertain to the period October 2006 to August 2008. The said bills are relied upon by the Director of the defendant no.1 Shri Kanodia since he has alleged in his Affidavit that the defendant no.1 conceived and adopted the mark ULTRATUFF in July 2006. However, the Director of the Defendant did not realize that in the application made to the trade mark Registry (Exhibit 9 at Pg,84 to his reply) dated 18th March 2008, the date of User of the mark ULTRATUFF CEMENT is shown as 5th January 2007. This itself prima facie establishes that the bills relied upon by the defendant no.1 from October 2006 superimposing the word ULTRATUFF thereon are not the bills pertaining to the sale of cement under the mark ULTRATUFF. When this contradiction in the dates pertaining to adoption/user along with the fact that the bills relied upon by the defendant no.1 were fabricated was pointed out by the Plaintiff in its Rejoinder, no Sur-Rejoinder was filed by the defendant no.1. Instead the defendant no.1 annexed Form-16 along with an affidavit-in-support to its Written Statement dated 7th September 2010 wherein the Registrar of Trade Marks, is requested to correct the date of user to 1-7-2006 instead of 5-1-2007. Interestingly though the Written Statement is verified by Shri Kamal Nayan Podar who is also the Deponent of the Affidavit dated 16th February 2011, filed in this Court pursuant to its directions, Mr. Podar though having annexed the same bills once again to the Written Statement with the words ULTRATUFF superimposed thereon has not deemed it fit to give the explanation in the said Written Statement about the subsequent addition of the word ULTRATUFF on the said bills as is now sought to be done. Instead the defendant no.1 has annexed Affidavits of its Dealers stating that the cement purchased by them under the said bills were under the trade mark ULTRATUFF. It is only after this Court directed the defendant no.1 to file its Affidavit, as set out hereinabove that Mr. Kamal Nayan Podar has attempted to give an explanation that in order to ascertain the date of user 19 and actual sales and to thereafter give the said information to the Trade Mark Registry, the office staff of defendant no.1 in the beginning of the year 2008 undertook the exercise of identifying the bill books which set out the sales of cement under the name ULTRATUFF CEMENT and the office staff added the words ULTRATUFF on the Bill Books for the sole purpose of identifying the sales of cement under the name ULTRATUFF CEMENT. This information was then relied upon for the purpose of preparation and filing of the defendant no.1's application in March 2008 for registration of the Trade Mark ULTRATUFF CEMENT. 24. In view of the aforestated facts I am convinced that the said explanation given by Shri Kamal Nayan Podar is false and incorrect to his knowledge. In addition his falsehood is exposed by the fact that as stated by him the application made to the Trade Mark Registry for registration of the trade mark ULTRATUFF is dated 18th March 2008. If for the purpose of identifying the sales the word ULTRATUFF was written on the bills by the office staff upto March 2008, Mr. Podar has not explained as to why the word ULTRATUFF is superimposed on the bills dated 22nd May 2008 and 20th August 2008 which are annexed (at Pages 88 and 89 to the Written Statement). Again if this exercise was carried out prior to the submission of the Application dated 18th March 2008 surely the Application would not have shown the date of user as 7th January 2007 which was sought to be corrected in September 2009/2010 only after the Plaintiff exposed the falsehood of the defendant no.1 qua the date of user of the trade mark ULTRATUFF. As set out hereinabove it was at that stage the defendant no.1 by an Affidavit dated 8th September 2009 of Shri Kamal Nayan Poddar (Exhibit to the written statement) furnished the information of its purported sales to the Trade Mark Registry and not in March 2008 as is now alleged. Even after an opportunity was given to the defendant no.1 to give its explanation on affidavit the defendant no.1 has not come out clear but the Director of defendant no.1 has made false statements on oath. I am therefore more than prima facie satisfied that the defendant no.1 has not started using the mark ULTRATUFF since July 2006 as 20 alleged and has throughout made false statements and relied on documents which are fabricated with the intention of misleading the court. The Affidavits filed by the dealers also therefore appears to be false. The defence raised by the Defendants therefore deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. In any event as submitted by Mr. Tulzapurkar the defendants are not entitled to raise any plea in equity so as to avoid an injunction being granted. 25. The defendants have further submitted that the impugned mark ULTRATUFF is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark ULTRATECH. This Court in its decision in M/s.Hiralal Prabhudas V/s. M/s. Ganesh Trading Co., reported in AIR 1984 Bom. 218, has aptly summarized the principles for deciding the question of deceptive similarities in Paragraph 5 as follows :- "5. What emerges from these authorities is (a) what is the main idea or salient features, (b) marks are remembered by general impressions by some significant detail rather than by a photographic recollection of the whole, (c) overall similarity is the touchstone, (d) marks must be looked at from the view and first impression of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, (e)overall structure, phonetic similarity and similarity of idea are imperfect recollection, (e) overall structure, phonetic similarity and similarity of idea are important and both visual and phonetic tests must be applied, (f) the purchaser must not be put in a state of wonderment, (g) marks must be compared as a whole microscopic examination being impermissible, (h) the broad and salient features must be considered for which the marks must not be placed side by side to find out differences in design and (i) overall similarity is sufficient. In addition, indisputably must also be taken into consideration the nature of the commodity, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase and other surrounding circumstances." 26. In James Chadwick & Bros Ltd. Vs. The National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1951 Bom. 147, at 154 this court referring to the observations of the Master of the Rolls in Seville 21 Perfumery case has reiterated that whilst comparing the two marks what is required to be considered are the essential features and has observed in Paragraph 13 as follows :- "[13] Reliance was also placed on June's case (Seville Perfumery Ltd. v. June Perfect Ltd., and F. W. Woolworth & Co. Ltd. (1941) 58 R.P.C. 147). In that case the distinguishing feature of the registered trade mark & the proposed trade mark was the word "June," & the Master of the Rolls in his judgment at p.162 observes : "Now the question of resemblance & the likelihood of deception are to be considered by reference not only to the whole mark, but also to its distinguishing or essential features, if any." The learned Master of the Rolls also says that (p.162): "In such cases the marks comes to be remembered by some feature in it which strikes the eye & fixes itself in the recollection. Such a feature is referred to sometimes as the distinguishing feature, sometimes as the essential feature, of the mark." "Therefore the test we must apply in this case is, what is the feature in the appellants' trade mark which strikes the eye & fixes itself in the recollection, & the only answer to the question is that it is the Eagle which so strikes the eye & fixes itself in the recollection............" The above decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., Chidambaram v/s James Chadwick & Bros reported in AIR 1953 SC 357 wherein it was reiterated that the Court has to consider the question from the view point of an average man of ordinary intelligence. In Paragraph 22 of its decision the Hon'ble Apex Court observed :- "(22) The principles of law applicable to such cases are well-settled. The burden of proving that the trade mark which a person seeks to register is not likely to deceive or to cause confusion is upon the applicant. It is for him to satisfy the Registrar that his trade mark does not fall within the prohibition of S. 8 and therefore it should be registered. Moreover in deciding whether a particular trade mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion that duty is not discharged by arriving at the result by merely comparing it with the trade mark which is already registered and whose 22 proprietor is offering opposition to the registration of the mark. The real question to decide in such cases is to see as to how a purchaser, who must be looked upon as an average man of ordinary intelligence, would react to a particular trade mark, what association he would form by looking at the trade mark, and in what respect he would connect the trade mark with the goods which he would be purchasing." 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Amritdhara Pharmacy V/s. Satya Deo Gupta reported in AIR 1963 SC449 at 453 paragraph 8 while considering the marks Amritdhara and Lakshmandhara held that no microscopic examination is permitted nor any question arises of considering the etymological meaning of the word marks. The court observed in Paragraph 8 of its decision as follows :- "(8).....................An unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would not, as the High Court supposed, split the name into its component parts and consider the etymological meaning thereof or even consider the meaning of the composite words as 'current of nectar' or 'current of Lakshman'. He would go more by the overall structural and phonetic similarity and the nature of the medicine he has previously purchased, or has been told about, or about which has otherwise learnt and which he wants to purchase. Where the trade relates to goods largely sold to illiterate or badly educated persons, it is no answer to say that a person educated in the Hindi language would go by the etymological or ideological meaning and see the difference between 'current of nectar' and current of Lakshman'. 'Current of Lakshman' in a literate sense has no meaning; to give it meaning one must further make the inference that the 'current or stream' is as pure and strong as Lakshman of the Ramayana. An ordinary Indian villager or townsman will perhaps know Lakshman, the story of the Ramayana being familiar to him, but we doubt if he would etymologise to the extent of seeing the so-called ideological difference between 'Amritdhara' and 'Lakshmandhara' He would go more by the similarity of the two names in the context of the widely known medicinal preparation which he wants for his ailments." 28. The defendants have contended that the plaintiffs registered trade 23 mark "Ultra Tech Cement The Engineers Choice" consists of 6 words and the impugned mark "Ultra Tuff Cement" contains only 3 words. Both the marks are therefore different and cannot be said to be deceptively similar. In my view, such a contention on the part of the defendant is baseless and untenable. The court is not required to conduct a microscopic examination of the two marks. As held in the aforesaid decisions the words other than the one which forms the essential feature are to be ignored. The essential feature of the two marks are the words Ultra Tech and Ultra Tuff. It is only these words which form the essential features of the two marks, which are to be compared, and I am prima facie satisfied that the same are phonetically, visually and structurally similar. From the advertisement expenses and sales figures produced by the plaintiffs and set out herein above the plaintiff has prima facie established the reputation of its mark and the defendants contention that the two bags are different and therefore there is no question of passing off is also unsustainable. Considering the nature of the goods and class of purchasers there certainly is likelihood of deception and confusion and also there is likelihood of association. As submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's registered trade mark having being fixed in the mind of the purchaser, it is bound to be recalled by an unwary purchaser when he sees the impugned mark particularly in respect of identical goods . The plaintiff is correct in its submission that the purchaser is bound to be put in the state of wonderment if totally not confused or deceived. 29. The Defendants have next relied on Section 17 of the Trade & Marks Act, 1999 in support of their contention that the registration granted to the plaintiff does not confer any exclusive right in the matter "ULTRA" and "ULTRATECH" which form only a part of the whole of the plaintiff's registered trade mark. Section 17 of the Act is for the sake of convenience reproduced here under :- "17. (1) When a trade mark consists of several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive 24 right to the use of the trademark taken as a whole. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a trade mark - (a) contains any part - (i)which is not the subject of a separate application by the proprietor for registration as a trade mark; or (ii)which is not separately registered by the proprietor as a trade mark; or (b) contains any matter which is common to the trade or is otherwise of a non-distinctive character; The registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade mark so registered." From the language used in Section 17 it is clear that when a trade mark consists of several marks the registration confers upon the proprietor exclusive rights to the use of trade mark taken as a whole. As held in the aforestated decisions while comparing the marks, the Court has to consider and compare the essential features of both the marks. If the essential features are similar, then confusion and deception can be said to arise. As submitted by the plaintiff, all that Section 17 lays down is that the registration of a trade mark shall not confer any exclusive rights in the matter forming only a part of the whole of trade mark so registered unless the part is the subject matter of a separate application for registration or is separately registered or is distinctive. The provisions of Section 17 contained in Sub Section 2(a)(i) and 2(a) (ii) and Sub Section (b) show that the three things mentioned therein are disjunctive and not cumulative. 25 In the present case the word ULTRATECH is distinctive. As submitted by the plaintiff the fact that the plaintiff's mark is registered without any disclaimers or limitations itself shows that the word ULTRATECH is a distinctive mark and the plaintiff have satisfied the criteria laid down in Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade & Marks Act, 1999. Therefore in the present case though the word ULTRATECH is not separately registered nor is a subject of a separate application, the same being distinctive shall not be hit by Section 17 (2) as submitted by the defendants. Both the Ld. Advocates have relied on various paragraphs of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Three-N Products Private Ltd., V/s. Emami Ltd., GA Nos. 2951 and 3976 of 2007 and CS No.204 of 2007, Paragraph 35 of the said decision is relevant and is reproduced hereunder: "35. The words 'the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right" towards the end of Section 17(2) have to be understood in the context. The import of such words is that the registration of the composite mark will not ipso facto confer any exclusive right as to the parts of the composite mark. But if the owner can establish exclusivity aliunde, the owner can assert the exclusivity. The registered owner is entitled to protection of its goodwill in such prominent feature as in an action for passing off unless the registered owner seeks to rely on Section 17(2)(b) of the Act in respect of a distinctive matter not common to the trade." In view thereof, the defendants contentions/arguments with regard to reliance on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is misplaced. 30. The defendants have contended that the word ULTRA is common to the trade and therefore there is no likelihood of deception or confusion. This contention has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Corn Products Refining Co. V/s. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC142 and has held/observed in Paragraph 15 as follows :- "(15) The series of marks containing the common 26 element or elements therefore only assist the applicant when these marks are in extensive use in the market. The onus of proving such user is of course on the applicant, who wants to rely on those marks. Now in the present case the applicant, the respondent before us, led no evidence as to the user of marks with the common element. What had happened was that the Deputy Registrar looked into his register and found there a large number of marks which had either 'Gluco' or 'Vita' as prefix or suffix in it. Now of course the presence of a mark in the register does not prove its user at all. It is possible that the mark may have been registered but not used. It is not permissible to draw any inference as to their user of the presence of the marks on the register. If any authority on this question is considered necessary, reference may be made to Kerly p. 507 &Willesden Varnish Co. Ltd. v. Young & Marten Ltd., (1922) 39 RPC 285 at p.289. It also appears that the appellant itself stated in one of the affidavits used in its behalf that there were biscuits in the market bearing the marks 'Glucose Biscuits' and Glucoa Lactine biscuits'. But these marks do not help the respondent in the present case. They are ordinary dictionary words in which no one has any right. They are really not marks with a common element or elements. We, therefore, think that the learned appellate Judges were in error in deciding in favour of the respondent basing themselves on the series marks, having 'Gluco' or 'Vita' as a prefix or a suffix." Following the judgment in the decision of Corn Products Refining Co. (Supra) a Learned Single Judge of this court in the decision of Pidilite Industries Ltd. V/s. SM Associates reported in 2004 (28) PTC 193, has in Paragraph 58 observed as follows :- "(58). .......................... The judgment in Corn Products requires the Defendant to prove that the marks must be not merely in use but in "extensive use". Thus, even in interim proceedings, it is not sufficient merely for the Defendant to show prima-facie that there is some user of the marks. There must be prima facie evidence to show extensive use. At the final hearing of the suit the level of proof required is higher - the matter requiring to be proved viz. 'extensive or substantial use' remaining the same. For instance, in a given case, a Defendant may well establish conclusively in interlocutory proceedings that there was actual use of the marks in the market. He would 27 thus have fulfilled the first requirement viz. actual use. He may however candidly admit that the extent of use is minimal. The Defendant could not in such circumstances resist an injunction on the series arguments contending that at the interim stage the extent of use is not material." Similar view was taken in M/s. D. R. Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. J. R. Industries reported in AIR 2008 Bom.122 at 128, wherein this Court in Paragraph 21 of its decision observed/held as follows :- "21. The other contention of the Defendant is that there are other products in which a similar device has been used as part of a label mark. While dealing with this submission, the Plaintiffs have stated in their rejoinder that this plea of the Defendant is bad and no evidence has been adduced to support that there are actual sales of such products in the market. There is prima facie merit in the contention of the Plaintiffs that merely annexing some labels is not enough. In the absence of cogent proof of the actual conduct of business involving such label mark in the market. The Plaintiff have also submitted that it is not possible to monitor all such competing products when such sales are small and in far flung areas of the country. The existence of more than one imitation cannot justify what is wrong." Thus, mere presence of a mark in a Register does not prove its user. The person relying on such marks having common elements is required to establish extensive user. The Defendants have failed to prove extensive user of the mark containing the word "ULTRA". In view thereof the defendants contention that the word ULTRA is common to the trade and therefore there is no likelihood of deception or confusion is also not sustainable. 31. The defendants have further contended that the Plaintiff's mark containing the word ULTRATECH is descriptive or common to the trade. However, the defendants have themselves applied for registration of the impugned mark containing the word ULTRATUFF. The Delhi High Court in its decision in the case of Automatic Electric Limited V/s. R. K. Dhawan reported in 1999 PTC 81, has observed in paragraph 16 as 28 follows :- "16. The defendants got their trade mark "DIMMER DOT" registered in Australia. The fact that the defendant itself has sought to claim trade proprietary right and monopoly in "DIMMER DOT", it does not lie in their mouth to say that the word "DIMMER" is a generic expression. User of the word "DIMMER" by others cannot be a defence available to the defendants, if it could be shown that the same is being used in violation of the statutory right of the plaintiff............." The above decision was approved by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. V/s. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture reported in MIPR 2008 (3) 0082 at 0103. Paragraph 40 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder :- "40. It was next argued by Mr. Rohtagi that the word "JIVA" is a descriptive word which cannot be protected as a trade mark by a Civil Court. We do not think so, the Appellant has itself applied for registration of the Jiva as a trade mark and cannot, therefore, argue that the mark is descriptive. In Automatic Electric Limited v. R.K. Dhawan and Anr. 1999 PTC (91) 81 this Court has in similar circumstances repelled the contention and held, that since the Defendant had itself sought to claim a proprietary right and monopoly in "DIMMER DOT", the disputed trade mark it did not lie in its mouth to say that the said mark was a generic expression. The Court observed: 16. The Defendants got their trade mark "DIMMER DOT" registered in Australia. The fact that the Defendant itself has sought to claim trade proprietary right and monopoly in "DIMMER DOT" is a generic expression." Thus defendants who have admittedly applied for registration of the impugned mark containing the word "ULTRATUFF" are therefore estopped from contending that the plaintiff's mark containing the word ULTRATECH is descriptive or common to the trade and therefore cannot be registered. 32. The Defendants' contention that the Plaintiffs have copied somebody else's mark is also not sustainable. As submitted by the 29 plaintiff, firstly, the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark. As held by this Court in the case of Podar Tyres Vs. Bedrock Sales Corporation Ltd reported in AIR 1993 Bom. Page 237 paragraph 41 the validity of registration cannot be raised at this stage. Secondly, even if the mark ULTRATECH is registered in the name of Rajiv Gupta, the same is in respect of Plywood, Block boards, Flush Doors, which goods are different from the goods for which the Plaintiff's mark is registered. Thirdly, the registration of the mark in the name of Rajiv Gupta cannot be a defense to the Plaintiff's action both for infringement and passing off against the Defendants. The effect of infringement against Rajiv Gupta is that the Plaintiff cannot complain of infringement against Rajiv Gupta in view of the provision of Section 30(e) of the Act. The registered proprietor has a right to prevent any other person from using a similar mark. 33. The defendants have submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit one year after the first notice was served on the defendant and is therefore not entitled to any relief on the ground of delay. The defendants are certainly the subsequent adopter of the impugned mark. The defendants were therefore aware of the plaintiff's mark and adopted the impugned mark with full knowledge and once the impugned mark is found to be similar, the defendants cannot rely on the user made after knowledge of the plaintiff's mark. It is the defendant's case that they adopted the mark after full enquiry. Thus the defendants adopted the mark with full knowledge of the plaintiff's mark and therefore cannot raise any plea in equity. This view gains support from the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bal Pharma Ltd. V/s. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2002 (24) PTC 226 (BOM) (DB). The relevant observations contained in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the said decision are reproduced hereunder :- "9. Then we turn to the question of delay and acquiescence. Mr. Tulzapurkar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent cites a judgement of the Supreme Court in Power Control Appliances and others v/s Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. 1994 2 SCC 448 wherein the 30 Supreme Court approvingly referred to the judgment of the Appeal Court in England in Electrolux LD v/s Electirx and quoted a passage therefrom in Paragraph 34 of its judgement. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment in Electrolux itself. Reference to the judgement in Electrolux shows that there is no hard and fast rule that delay per se would defeat an application for interlocutory injunction. The judgement indicates that in a situation where the Defendant to an action has been using the mark, even if concurrently, even if making himself aware of the fact as to whether the same mark is the subject matter of registration and belongs to another person, the first person cannot be heard to complain for he has been using it negligently as much as he has not taken the elementary precaution of making himself aware by looking at the public record of the Registrar as to whether the mark in question is the property of another. If however, he had taken search and, knowing full well that the mark was the property of another person, continues to use the mark then he runs the risk of the registered proprietor challenging his action for infringement and merely because it is done at a subsequent stage, he cannot be heard to complain on the ground of delay. Further discussion in the judgement shows that in order to deny an interlocutory injunction, the delay must be such as to have induced the Defendant or atleast to have lulled him into a false sense of security to continue to use the trademark in the belief of he was the monarch of all he surveyed. In our judgement, such are not the circumstances here. We are not satisfied from the records that a search was taken of the Registry by the Appellant to assure itself that there was no other person who owned the mark MICRODINE. Assuming that the search was taken, and the Appellant has done it consciously, then the Appellant has to thank itself for having gambled by investing large amounts in a risky venture. Either way we do not think that the defense can succeed, at this stage atleast." "11. Finally, that brings us to the question of balance of convenience. Even on balance of convenience, we are of the view that the Learned Single Judge is right. The damage caused to the goodwill of the proprietor of a trade mark may be intangible and not computable in terms of money, but has long term effect of devaluing the trade mark itself which is the property of the registered proprietor. Another person, who consciously and without taking the necessary steps to assure himself of existence of such mark, uses it and invest money therein, does not obviously have the balance of convenience in his favour. At any rate, 31 at this stage at least we are satisfied that the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge can not be faulted on the ground of balance of convenience also............." 34. In the decision of Poddar Tyres Limited Vs. Bedrock Sales Corporation Limited and another (supra) the learned Single Judge of this Court has relied on the following observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Express Bottlers Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Pepsico Inc. (Appeal No.436 of 1989 in Notice of Motion No.1920 of 1988 in Suit No.2903 of 1986) decided on 8th February 1991 which reads thus :- "Since, however, it was stated on behalf of the defendant that Kurdukar, J., was in error in declining to consider balance of convenience, we shall touch upon that aspect, though we must make it clear that, in our view, it is only in unusual circumstances that the balance of convenience should play a part in a matter where the plaintiff is the owner of a registered trade mark." (emphasis added) The learned Single Judge after referring to the above observations of the Division Bench held as follows :- "It is obvious that, in the present case there are no such `unusual circumstances' which would impel the Court to go into the question of balance of convenience in the teeth of the fact that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the trade mark." 35. A Division Bench of this Court in Schering Corporation & Others Vs. Kilitch Co. (Pharma) Pvt. Ltd. (1994-IPLR-1) has relied on the observations of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in M/s.Hindustan Pencils Pvt.Ltd. Vs. India Stationery Products Co. and another (AIR-1990-Delhi-19) paragraph 39 of which reads thus : "39. ... ... ... Any infringer who uses or adopts some one else's mark must be aware of the consequences which may follow. The defendants run the risk in using a mark which belonged to some one else. It continued its business uninterruptedly for a number of years before any 32 action was taken by the plaintiffs against it. Any growth after notice is at the risk and peril of the defendant. The defendant certainly had notice of application of the plaintiff having been filed against it in the year 1985 for cancellation of registration of the copyright. The defendant should have been warned at that stage, that the plaintiff is not likely to accept the user of its mark by the defendant. If the defendant continued to do business by using the impugned mark, it did so at its own peril. The continued user cannot be set up as a defence under these circumstances." 36. In my view, considering the facts in the present case and the aforestated decisions there is no manner of doubt, that the contention of the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief on the ground of delay is not tenable and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. 37. There are no equities in favour of the Defendants. As the Defendants as set out herein above have come to the Court with fabricated documents, they are not entitled to raise any plea in equity so as to avoid an injunction being granted. This observations gains support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gujarat Bottling V/s. Hindustan Coca Cola reported in AIR 1995 SC, paragraph 50 reads thus:- "50. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that in the instant case GBCL had approached the High Court for the injunction order, granted earlier, to be vacated. Under order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction of the Court to interfere with an order o interlocutory or temporary injunction is purely equitable and, therefore, the Court, on being approached, will, apart from other considerations, also look to the conduct of the party invoking the jurisdiction of the Court, and may refuse to interfere unless his conduct was free from blame. Since the relief is wholly equitable in nature, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the court has to show that he himself was not at fault and that he himself was not responsible for bringing about the state of things complained of and that he was not unfair or inequitable in his dealings with the party against whom he was seeking relief. His conduct should be fair and honest. These considerations will arise not only in respect of the 33 person who seeks an order of injunction under order 39 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but also in respect of the party approaching the Court for vacating the ad-interim or temporary injunction order already granted in the pending suit or proceedings." 38. In the above circumstances, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). The defendants shall pay costs of the Notice of Motion to the plaintiff. 39. The learned advocate appearing for defendants prays for stay of the operation of this order. At his request, the effect and operation of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)