Gujarat High Court
Purvish Indrakant Shah vs Shyamal Jagdishchandra Sheth on 23 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 164 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 164 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
✓
==========================================================
PURVISH INDRAKANT SHAH & ORS.
Versus
SHYAMAL JAGDISHCHANDRA SHETH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARJOTSINGH J KASSOWAL(11053) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR SHIVAM R PANDEY(12222) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 23/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Harjotsingh J. Kassowal for the appellants and Learned Advocate Mr. Shivam R. Pandey, Caveator. Admit. Learned Advocate Mr. Shivam R. Pandey waives service of notice for the respondent. Page 1 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
2. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.
3. The parties will be referred as far as possible as per their original position in the suit.
4. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE APPEAR TO BE THAT:
4.1. The respondent herein is an original plaintiff of Trade Mark Suit No. 1 of 2025, filed against the appellants herein who are the original defendants. As there was an injunction prayed for and granted by the Trial Court vide its order dated 11th June 2025. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the original defendants.
5. SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANTS-ORIGINAL DEFENDANTS:
5.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Harjotsingh J. Kassowal would submit that the Trial Court has committed serious error of law by observing that as the defendants had not acted as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 1st February 2023 and so also 7th April 2023, the plaintiff is entitled to get temporary injunction as prayed in the injunction application. It Page 2 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined is submitted that as per the MoU executed between the plaintiff being the proprietor of Anugrah Events with the defendant No.1 happens to be proprietor of T.O.V. Entertainment and Anugrah LLP, wherein, the plaintiff is also one of the partners. Whereby, as per the MoU, a logo in the name of "Taste of Vadodara" would be of exclusive ownership of defendant No.1. It was agreed between the parties that for any event project "Taste of Vadodara - 2022," defendant No. 1 was required to pay to second party to such MoU i.e. Anugrah Event LLP, the sum of Rs.40,00,000/-.
5.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Kassowal would further submit that subsequent to such MoU, another MoU dated 7th April 2023, was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 i.e. the proprietor of TOV Entertainment. Whereby, the ownership of the logo namely "Taste of Vadodara" would be of equal ownership of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It is submitted that as per Clause 11 of such MoU, parties have agreed that on making payment of Rs.42,00,000/- in three installments by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 would become the absolute owner of such logo i.e. "Taste of Vadodara." Once receiving such payment, every right under Page 3 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Trademark, Copyright and Patent (Intellectual property rights) would vest in favor of defendant No. 1, as stated in Clause 14 of such MoU.
5.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Kassowal would further submit that pursuant to the MoU dated 7th April 2023, three cheques, as disclosed in Clause 11 of such MoU, were given to the plaintiff, out of which only one cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- dated 7th April 2023, came to be deposited and realized by plaintiff. It is submitted that for reasons best known to the plaintiff, he has chosen not to deposit the balance two cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/-, respectively, issued for the dates 5th May 2023 and 5th June 2023. It is submitted that for not depositing such cheques by plaintiff, defendants cannot be injuncted.
5.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Kassowal would further submit that when defendant No. 1 having performed his part of the contract as per the MoU dated 7th April 2023, for not depositing the balance two cheques by the plaintiff, the Trial Court had erroneously observed in its impugned order that payments were not received by the plaintiff. Page 4 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined 5.5. Learned Advocate Mr. Kassowal would submit that as per the aforesaid two MoUs executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, was well within its right to use the logo i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" and also entitled to enter into further agreement with different entities like the rest of the defendants. 5.6. Learned Advocate Mr. Kassowal would submit that the Trial Court, without considering all these aspects of the case, having not considered that neither any prima facie case nor balance of convenience nor any irreparable loss made out by plaintiff, still granted injunction in favour of plaintiff, thereby, committed serious error of law.
5.7. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Kassowal would request this Court to allow the present appeal.
6. SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF:
6.1. Per Contra, learned Advocate Mr. Shivam R. Pandey appearing for the plaintiff, would vehemently opposed the present appeal, contending inter alia that the plaintiff is a registered trademark holder and entitled for the relief as prayed in the injunction application.Page 5 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined 6.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandey would submit that the documents i.e. statement of bank accounts, some of the photographs and letter dated 17th May 2023, issued by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, as well as other tax invoices in relation to appellant No. 4, are not part of the record of the suit, having not produced by defendants, which may not be looked into by this Court.
6.3. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandey would further submit that the plaintiff is a registered trademark holder having all rights to seek injunction against a person who is not authorized to use the registered trademark i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" against the wish of the plaintiff. It is submitted that as per the MoU dated 1st February 2023, defendant No. 1 has never acted upon it, having not paid any amount to the plaintiff, thereby, committed breach of such MoU, would not be entitled to pass on any right flowing from such MoU to third party. 6.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandey would further submit that the Trial Court, having noticed all these aspects and having found that the plaintiff has not been paid as per MoU, granted injunction which may not be disturbed by this Court while Page 6 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined exercising its power under Order 43, Rule 1 of the CPC. 6.5. Learned Advocate Mr. Pandey would further submit that so far as MoU dated 7th April 2023, executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is concerned, as per said MoU, the balance two cheques were not deposited by the plaintiff as there was no clarity given by the defendant No. 1 as regards its realization. So, as on date, the plaintiff, having absolute rights and having registration in relation to the trademark i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" in his favour, maintained the suit and secured the injunction against third parties, including defendants. 6.6. Making the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr. Pandey would request this Court to reject the present appeal.
7. No other or further submissions have been advanced by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties ANALYSIS
8. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties at length.
9. The facts so emerge from the impugned order, as well as after going through the documentary evidence available on record, Page 7 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined that there were two MoUs independently executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. One MoU was executed on 1st February 2023, wherein, the plaintiff being the proprietor of Anugrah Events was the first party, Anugrah Events LLP was the second party and the defendant No.1 being the proprietor of T.O.V. Entertainment was the third party. As per such MoU, the logo in the name of "Taste of Vadodara" would be the sole ownership of the third party i.e. defendant No.1, wherein, neither the first party i.e. plaintiff nor the second party have any right and authority on such logo. The defendant No. 1 being the third party was required to pay Rs.40,00,000/- to the second party i.e. Anugrah Events LLP and not to the plaintiff i.e. Proprietor of Anugrah Events. It remained undisputed that in the suit proceedings, the second party i.e. Anugrah Events LLP is not joined either as a plaintiff or defendant.
10. As per the terms of the MoU dated 1st February 2023, there is absolute right given in favour of defendant No. 1 in relation to presenting event/project using word "Taste of Vadodara" and as per Clause 8, the first and second parties to such MoU have no right of presenting event/project. As per Clause 11 of such Page 8 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined MoU, the City of Vadodara has jurisdiction to decide the lis between the parties in case of any breach of condition.
11. Likewise, as per another MoU dated 7th April 2023, executed between defendant No. 1 as the first party and the plaintiff as the second party, whereby, it was agreed between the parties that "Taste of Vadodara" would be one of an event brand of T.O.V. Entertainment i.e. defendant No.1 - Proprietor firm. Wherein, the first party and the second party i.e. defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff, respectively, having 50-50% share [See: Clause 1 of MoU dated 7th April 2023]. As per Clause 11 of such MoU, it was agreed between the parties that defendant No. 1 will purchase 50% right of the plaintiff by paying him Rs.42,00,000/-. For which, defendant No. 1 in fact given the plaintiff three different cheques of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/-, respectively. Further, as per Clause 14 of such MoU, once such payment being received by the plaintiff, all intellectual property rights, including Trademark, Copyright, etc., would be of exclusive ownership of defendant No. 1 in relation to "Taste of Vadodara."
12. It remained undisputed that the plaintiff has encashed Page 9 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Rs.5,00,000/- out of the said amount, but for reasons best known to him, has not deposited the balance two cheques. There may be an inter se dispute arisen between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and/or other two partners of Anugrah Event LLP, but the fact remains that defendant No. 1 by virtue of the execution of the first MoU dated 1st February 2023, as well as the second MoU dated 7th April 2023, having right and ownership to use registered trademark of plaintiff i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" and as per the terms of the MoU, can use it commercially, including assigning it to others i.e. Third parties.
13. The Trial Court appears to have completely lost sight this aspect and not properly appreciated the different clauses of the aforesaid MoUs, whereby, committed serious error in law by prohibiting defendant No. 1 and other defendants not to use trademark i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" by granting injunction.
14. Further, the Trial Court has erroneously observed in Para-21 that;
"......Thus, it becomes crystal clear from the aforesaid documents that, the defendant No.1 has got 50% shares of sole plaintiff and to use the trademark of logo of "Taste of Page 10 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined Vadodara" but, after executing the said documents and after getting the permission to use such trademark, he has not paid remaining amount of said deed of MoU. Here, it is to be mentioned that, the said document is of dated 07/04/2023 and even after passing of two years, the defendant No.1 has not shown any readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract by making payments of remaining amounts.....".
Such would be the erroneous and perverse observation on the part of the Trial Court, inasmuch as it is not the case of the plaintiff that he has not received the balance two cheques from the defendant No. 1 and so also not disputed having not deposited it. As observed hereinabove, when the plaintiff on his own failed to deposit those two cheques, no blame can be shifted on the shoulder of defendant No. 1. Had the plaintiff deposited remaining two cheques of balance amount, the exclusive right of using the word "Taste of Vadodara" as per the MoU dated 7th April 2023, would have stood transferred in favor of defendant No. 1.
15. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the case, rather went into complete wrong direction, having not appreciated that it was not the defendant No. 1 would not Page 11 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined ready and willing to perform the part of his obligation as per the MoU, but rather the entire situation cropped up because of inaction on the part of the plaintiff, having not deposited the balance two cheques of the remaining amount given to him by defendant No. 1 as per the MoU dated 7th April 2023.
16. At this stage, it also requires to be observed that the Trial Court not properly appreciated the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1999"). It is so submitted that as per Section-31 of the Act, 1999, plaintiff has an exclusive right to use registered mark and can sought for injunction against its unauthorized use. As such, Section 31 of the Act, 1999 would rather stand in favour of defendant No. 1 than the plaintiff, inasmuch as undoubtedly, there was an assignment of the trademark i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" by the plaintiff in favor of defendant No. 1, having executed MoU dated 7th April 2023 and so also allowed defendant No. 1 to use the logo of "Taste of Vadodara" having executed the MoU dated 1st February 2023. Such assignment is not unknown in the commercial world where a person having registered mark can always, on terms, assign such mark to be used in favour of the assignee. It would be profitable to refer Section-2(1)(b) read Page 12 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined with (r) of the Act, 1999, wherein, definitions of "assignment" and "permitted use" are given, which read as under:
"Section-2(1)(b) "assignment" means an assignment in writing by act of the parties concerned;"
"Section-2(1)(r) "permitted use", in relation to a registered trade mark, means the use of trade mark-
(i) by a registered user of the trade mark in relation to goods or ser- vices-
(a) with which he is connected in the course of trade; and
(b) in respect of which the trade mark remains registered for the time being; and
(c) for which he is registered as registered user; and
(d) which complies with any conditions or limitations to which the registration of registered user is subject; or
(ii) by a person other than the registered proprietor and registered user in relation to goods or services-
(a) with which he is connected in the course of trade; and
(b) in respect of which the trade mark remains registered for the time being; and
(c) by consent of such registered proprietor in a written agreement; and
(d) which complies with any conditions or limitations to which such user is subject and to which the registration of the trade mark is subject."
(emphasis supplied) Page 13 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
17. Such statutory provisions of law unnoticed by the Trial Court while granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff, who already assigned in favour of defendant No. 1 to use his registered trademark i.e. "Taste of Vadodara" as per the execution of the said MoU. Thus, in view of aforesaid, no prima facie case made out by plaintiff.
18. As per the first MoU dated 1st February 2023, any amount due and payable by defendant No. 1 only to Anugrah Events LLP (wherein the plaintiff is one of the partners) and not to the plaintiff's proprietary concern, Anugrah Events, per se (See Clause-5 of MOU - 01.02.2023). Having so observed herein above, said LLP is neither plaintiff nor defendant in the suit. In such circumstances, it cannot be gainsaid that the plaintiff would suffer any irreparable loss, inasmuch as he would be adequately compensated in terms of money, if succeeds in the suit.
19. Having regards to the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the balance of convenience also tilts in favour of the defendants rather plaintiff, who, with open eyes, executed the aforesaid MoU but failed to act upon it. Page 14 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined
20. Lastly, it also required to be mentioned that in both these MoUs, the parties to MoU, including the plaintiff agreed that in case of any dispute between the parties, the appropriate jurisdictional court would be Vadodara, but reasons best known to the plaintiff, he chose to file suit before the Court of Halol, District Panchmahal, maybe under the mistaken belief that his registration mark issued from such places. This Court would not like to make further comment upon it as this aspect can be taken care by the Trial Court while deciding other issues including any issue of jurisdiction raised by defendants in their pleading and may arise during the course of trial.
21. Having reached to the aforesaid conclusion and having so found order impugned is erroneous and perverse inasmuch as, plaintiff failed to prove any prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, even though, this Court having limited jurisdiction to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the Trial Court having granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff, but as per settled legal position of law, whenever this Court found such discretionary order either erroneous, perverse, or contrary to settled legal position of law, even in such limited jurisdiction under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Page 15 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined CPC, this Court can always interfere with such erroneous/perverse order. Thus, in light of aforesaid, I would like to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
22. Before parting with this judgment, on request of learned advocate Mr. Pandey appearing for plaintiff, it is made clear that any of the observations so made hereinabove by this Court would not influence the mind of the Trial Court while deciding the lis between the parties when finally decides the suit. CONCLUSION
23. In light of the aforesaid observations, discussions and reasons, the present Appeal From Order is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11th June 2025, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Halol, Panchmahal, passed below Exhibit 5 in Trade Mark Suit No. 1 of 2025, is hereby quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned injunction application filed below Exhibit 5 in Trade Mark Suit No. 1 of 2025 is hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
24. If the parties to the suit request for early adjudication of the Page 16 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/AO/164/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/09/2025 undefined suit, the Trial Court may consider such request in accordance with law.
25. Direct service is permitted.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) Nilesh Page 17 of 17 Uploaded by MR. NILESHKUMAR RAMESHBHAI PARMAR(HCD0068) on Thu Sep 25 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 25 22:20:41 IST 2025