IN BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIVIL SUIT NO. 1342/2007 IN NMS NO.

1819/2007 ORDER DT. 06/07/2007 AFFDAVIT HAS BEEN FILLED BY MR.

JAYKANT N SHAH DIRECTOR OF M/S GMBELL HELATHCARE INDIA PVT
LTD ON 22/08/2007 BY ADVOCATE MRS. BHGWATI TREVADI
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Most important facts has been accepted by m/s gmbell healthcare india pvt ltd.

1. This affidavit has been filled after AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER PASSED BY BOMBAY
HIGH COURT.
2. GMBELL HAS NOT CHALLENGE THIS ORDER TILL DATE.
3. GMBELL HAS ACCEPTED FACTS ABOUT T.M. UNDER DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT ORIGINAL
OWNER IS UNIVERSAL IMPEX.
4. UNDER PARA 7..a] IN FACT THE ORIGINAL DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT IS WITH THE
PLAINTIFF.[ SATISH KANTILAL MEHTA]
5. PARA NO. 14.. COPY RIGHTS.IT APPEARS THE AUTHOR OR CREATOR OF ARTISTIC
WORK OF THE LABLES IS DEF. NO. 1 [ JAYESH KANTILAL MEHTA.
6. SAME FACTS IN PARA NO. 15.
7. PARA NO. 23 .THE ORIGINAL DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT IS WITH SATISH K MEHTA
AND HIS CUSTODY.
8. PAR NO. 28 ORDER DT. 22/03/2007 DECLARE DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT PURPORTED .
9. NON ACQUIESEENCE OF DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT
10. DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT UNILATERAL,VOID, ILLEGAL, ACQUIESCENCE,FRAUD,
11. Para no. 38. The original deed of assigntment is with the plaintiff..satish k Mehta.
ANS SAME IS IN HIS CUSTODY AND IS MAKING FALSE STATEMENT THAT
INSPECTION IS NOT GIVEN.

ABOUT CLAIM OF RS. 5,00,000=00 AS CONSIDERATION AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY
GMBELL TO UNIVERSAL IMPEX .
1. THE SUM OF RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN SET OFF . PAGE 33.
2. Rs.5 lacs has been set off annexed herin above ex h.



page no. 26 to 45

-----------------------------------

ORIGINAL owner of the said trade mark is universal impex..........which is now dissolved. page no. 27
para 4 [i]


.it is stated that goods are being manufactured by def. no. 3 company [ GMBELL] and being marketed by
universal impex. page 28 [vi]



.... have mislead to court page 28 para 5

and snatched an order of injunction dt. 06/07/2007,which order will cause
great harm and injury to def.
but also to several workers who are in the employment of the def. co.
and render them jobless and without any means of even bare subsistence.
the quality supply .....will come to stand still
and /or suffer the raw materials worth several lacs of rupees will be wasted
only because the plaintiff is jealous and /or
has dispute with def. no. 1 [ jayesh mehta] and desire to some how ruin the def.

page no. 28 para 6
----------------------------
i say that plaintiff has dishonestly and maladroitly contended that the said
DEED OF ASSIGNMENT
WAS UNILATERAL AND that he is not AWARE OF THE SAID DEED OF ASSIGNMENT
THE PLAINTIFF IS MAKING BLATANTLY FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH AND IS GUILTY OF
ACQUIESCENCE AND SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH. THESE DEF. HAVE BEEN SELLING THE
GOODS UNDER THE TRADE MARKS LISTED IN THE SAID DEED OF ASSIGNMENT EXTENSIVELY
TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH NAME OF UNIVERSAL IMPEX.

PAGE NO. 29 PARA NO. 7
----------------------------------------

...Malafide intention contending that he is not aware of the DEED OF ASSIGNMENT
FOR THE FOLLOWING AMONG OTHER REASONS:-


a................. IN FACT EVEN THE ORIGINAL DEED OF ASSIGNMENT IS WITH THE PLAINTIFF.
--
c........... universal impex is the sole distributor of def. no. 3 for the state of MAHRASTRA &
GUJARAT................................... DEF. NO. 3 IS ENITLED TO RECOVER RS. 45,53,296.
FROM UNIVERSAL IMPEX.

[ NOTE GMBELL AFFDAVIT TO COURT ON 13/06/2007 ABOUT ADJUSTING [ J.V] FOR RS. 5 LACS]

THIS PROVES THAT WHAT CLAIMS THAT CONSIDERATION AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO
UNIVERSAL IMPEX IS FALSE AND THAT TOO WITH KNOWINGLY THAT ITS NOT TRUE ???

d...................... the plaintiff has been aware of the use of the said mark by def. no.3 and has
ACQUIEESCENCE THE USE OF THE SAID T.M.

PAGE NO. 30
--------------------

e...............FURTHER THE ADVOCATE HAS FILLED APPLICATION............................
HAS ALSO
DRAFTED THE ASSIGNTMENT DEED ...................THE LAWYER WHO HAD DRAFTED THE DEED
OF ASSIGNTMENT DT. 04/10/2005 .........

PARA NO. 9
-------------------

a................ it is submitted universal impex has discontinued use of the trade marks mentioned in
the DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT SINCE a long time.................

b..............t.m associated with universal only and not with plaintiff or def. no.1 & def. no.2

PAGE NO. 31 PARA 11
---------------------------------------


................................... SOMEHOW SNATCH AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION AGAINST ....
THE REPERCUSSIONS IT CAN HAVE IN FACT THE DEF. NO. 3 IS THE DIRECT VICTIM OF THE
QUARREL BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEF. NO.1 WHILE INJUNCTION IS GRANTED IN FAVOUR
OF PLAINTIFF AND AGST DEF. FOR SIMILAR ACTS.

PAGE NO. 32 PARA 14
-------------------------------------

.........................IT APPEARS THE AUTHOR OR CREATOR OF ARTISTIC WORK OF THE SAID
LABLES IS DEF. NO. 1 [ JAYESH MEHTA]


PARA NO. 15
-------------------
.........................WITH REF. TO 3 [C] IT APPEARS THE CREATOR OF THE ARTISTIC WORK OF THE
LABEL PACKAGING IS CREATED BY DEF. NO.1 [ JAYESH MEHTA]


PAGE NO. 33 PARA NO.17
------------------------------------------
.............................................the sum of rs. 5 lacs refered to in the said DEED
OF ASSIGNMENT HAS BEEN SET OFF AND IS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PLAINTIFF
................RS. 45,53,296.60 ARE PAYBLE BY UNIVERSAL IMPEX.


PARA NO. 19
---------------------

................IT IS .... PLAINTIFF HAS CAUSED LOSS TO UNIVERSAL IMPEX.


PAGE NO. 34 PARA NO. 23
----------------------------------------

TO THE..................................DEF. NO.3, THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT WAS DRAFTED BY MR.
BHARAT SHAH ADVOCATE .................................................
THE ORIGINAL DEED OF ASSIGNMENT IS WITH PLAINTIFF AND HE IS MAKING HUE AND CRY
ABOUT THE ORIGINAL WHICH IS IN HIS CUSTODY............................

PAGE NO. 35 PARA 28
--------------------------------------

.............ORDER DT. 22/03/2007 IS A MATTER OF RECORD AND DEF. NO.3...

PARA 30
------------------

...............IT IS DENIED THAT THE SAID DEED OF ASSIGNMENT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF FRAUD
AS ALLEGED.................THE SAID DEED OF ASSIGNMENT THE PLAINTIFF
HAS ACQUIESCE THE USE BY DEF. NO. 3 ........................IT IS DEINED THE DEED
OF ASSIGNMENT IS NOT BINDING AS ALLEGED OR AT ALL.

PARA 31
----------------
...,THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT IS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONCURRENCE OF
THE PLAINTIFF AND HE HAS ACQUIESCENCE THE USE AS STATED HERRINGBONE...

PAGE NO. 36 [ PARA 32, 33 , 34, 35 , 36, 37, 38.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

32...........THE SAID DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT IS WITHIN THE KNOWLEGDE AND CONCURRENCES
OF THE PLAINTIFF AND HE HAS ACQUIESCENCE...............
IT IS DENIED THWE DEF. NO.1 HAS UNILATERALLY ASSIGNED THE SAID T.M UNDER THE DEED
OF ASSIGNTMENT.

33............WITH REF. TO PARA 4 [C] IT IS DENIED THAT DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT IS ILLEGAL AND
VIOD AS ALLEGED OR AT ATT.........
THE PLAINTIFF AFTER HAVE ACQUIESCENCE CAN NOT MAKE SUCH ALLEGATION ON
OATH.........

34.... [4] D IT IS DENIED THAT NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN MADE BY DEF. NO.3 AS
ALLEGED..............................

35..... 4 [E] [I] IT IS DEINED THE SAID DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT REFLECTS ANY
INCONSITENCIES AS ALLEGDED.........

36.............WITH REFE. TO PARA 4 [E] [II]

THE SUM OF RS. 5 LACS HAS BEEN SET OFF ANNEXED HERIN ABOVE
AS AND EXHIBIT AND I CRAVE TO REPLY UPON THE SAME WHEN
PRODUED.


37.........AND IN CASE HE HAS ACQUIESENCE ..............IT IS DEINED THE DOCUMENT DOES NOT
CRATE ANY RIGHT AND VIOD AS ALLEGED OR AT ALL.............

38.............WITH REF. TO PARA NO. 4 [F] THIS DEF. SUBMITS THAT THE
ORIGINAL OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT IS WITH THE
PLAINTIFF.THE PLAINTIFF IS DELIBERATELY MAKING A HUE AND CRY
ABOUT THE ORIGINAL DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT AS THESAME IS IN HIS
CUSTODY AND IS MAKING FALSE STATEMENT THAT INSPECTION IS
NOT GIVEN.

PAGE NO. 37 PARA 40
------------------------------------

..............................................IT IS CLEAR THAT GOODS ARE MANUFACTURE BY DEF. NO. 3 AND
MARKETED BY UNIVERSAL IMPEX.

PAGE NO. 38 PARA 42
-----------------------------------

................DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT IS AS ALLEGED OR AT ALL................
PLAINTIFF IS AWARE OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT.......
WITHIN HIS KNOWLEGDE AND CONCURRENCES..........
THE PLAINTIFF HAS ACQUIESCED THE USE BY DEF, NO,3

PARA 44
----------------

WITH REF TO PARA 10, IT IS DENIED THAT THE DEF. NO.3 HAS COMMITTED AN ACTS OF
INFRINGEMENT AND PASSING-OFF BY THE USE OF T.M UNDER DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT .
DENY DEF. NO3 HAS CASUED LOSS TO THE PLAINTIFF ON THE CONTARY THE PLAINTIFF HAS
CASUED LOSS TO DEF. 3 BY FILLING THIS FALSE SUIT.

PAGE 39 PARA 46
-------------------------------

................THE PLAINTIFF HERIN WHO HAS MADE ABSOLUTELY FALSE STATMENT ON OATH
WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION TO SOME HOW SNATCH AWAY THE TRADE MARKS OF DEF. NO.3
AND WHICH HAV BEEN USED BY DEF. NO.3 ...............

PAGE NO 40 PARA 48
---------------------------------

..............................IT IS DENIED THAT DEF ARE NOT ENTITLED TO USE THE SAID T.M ..............

PARA 49
------------
..................IT IS DENIED BAL OF CONVENIENCE IS IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFF AND AGST DEF.
IT IS DENIED THAT DEF ACTS ARE ILLEGAL...
................THE PLAINTIFF HAS ACQUIESCENCE AND HAD FULL KNOWLEGDE OF THE USE OF
THE SAID T.M. IN THE SAID D.A
IT IS DENIED THAT PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF AS ALLEGED OR AT ALL.

PAGE NO 41 PARA 55
--------------------------------------

...................................THIS DEF. SUBMITS THAT THE PLAINTIFF,ONE MR UMESH VORA AND HIS
FRIENDS AND/OR RELATIVES HAVE FILLED THIS SUIT IN COLLUSION TO HARASS DEF. NO.3
AND SOMEHOW RUIN THE DEF. NO.1.......

PAGE NO. 42 PARA 59
-----------------------------------

..................................IT IS DENIED DEF.NO.3 IS AS ALLEGED DEF. NO.1.............

PAGE NO. 44 PARA 71
------------------------------------

[iii].................... o the other hand the def. no.3 company has invested huge amount in purusent to the d.a.
dt. 04/10/2005

[v]....................... plaintiff can file separate suit agst its partner for recovery/loss and damages

[vi].................on the other hand ,all the efforts and investment of def. no.3 company will be perished to
soil and even if in future even if the suit of the plaintiff is rejected the def. no.3 would have suffered
loss.thus there will be irretievable situation agst the interest of the def. no.3 company.on the other hand
the plaintiff has not to sufferany loss ...

page no. 45

[ vii] ALL THE GOODS PRODUCED BY DEF.NO.3 CO. AREEXCISABLE GOODS AND
THERFORE,ORDER OFKEEPING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR THE PRODUCTS BEING SOLD
UNDER THE IMPUGNED T.M. WILL SURELY MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

[VIII] THE DEF. NO. 3CO WILL HAVE TO DISCONTINUE ITS FUNCTIONING MORE THAN 40 TO 50
PERSONS WILL BECOME UNEMPLOYED AND WILL LOOSE THERIE LIVELIHOOD..


ABOVE GIVEN FACTS WILL PROVED ALL THE FACTS WHICH GMBELL HAS GIVEN ON OATH TO
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AFTER ITS AD-INTERIM INJUCTION ORDER PASSED ON 06/07/2007.
GMBELL HAS NOT CHALLANGE THIS ORDER

DEED OF ASSIGNTMENT HAS BEEN CHALLANGED

CONSIDERATION AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID TO UNIVERSAL IMPEX AS
CLAIMED IN DIST. COURT IN SUIT 29/2008 AND
BY AFFDAVIT ON OATH
DT. 13/06/2007
AND ORDER DT. 06/07/2007
AFTER ORDER
AFFDAVIT IN REPLY BY DEF. NO. 3 TO THE NOTICEOF MOTION NO. 1819/2007