[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
J. P. Infrastructure Private Limited vs International Society For Krishna ... on 5 December, 2025
ssd tpacl/19909/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THIRD PARTY APPLICATION LODG. NO. 19909 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 46 OF 2021
Mr. Amit Mehta a/w Vedant Rane, Ld. Advocate for the third party applicant.
Ms. Neha Iyer i/b Legasis Partners, Ld. Advocate for Orig. Plaintiff.
Before: Smt. Pooja P. Bhaidkar
Addl. Registrar (O.S.) /
Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master
Date : 5th December, 2025.
P.C:
1. This Third Party Application is filed by the Third Party Applicant seeking
Certified Copy of entire papers and proceeding of Commercial IP Suit Lodg.
No. 235 of 2020 which has been disposed of on 26.06.2020.
2. The contentions of the Third Party Applicant in the said application and
in the arguments of the Ld. Advocate for the Third Party Applicant are that the
Plaintiff in the aforesaid IP. Suit has preferred Appeal from the Order No. 26 of
2021, before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court against the Third Party
Applicant, challenging the Order dated 23.12.2020, whereby interim relief
against the Applicant came to be rejected. In Ground 'N' of the Memo of
Appeal, the Plaintiff asserts that it's mark had attained the status of a well-
known trademark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act which the
Applicant does not admit. The Plaintiff claims 'well-known mark' on the basis
of Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 26.06.2020,
(wrongly mentioned as 26.06.2010 in Application) in the aforesaid
Commercial IP. Suit Lodg. No. 235 of 2020 (finally numbered as Commercial
IP Suit No. 46 of 2021).
..2/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-2- tpacl/19909/2025
3. The Ld. Advocate for the Third Party Applicant further states that by
letter dated 04.04.2025, the Applicant had requested the Plaintiff for giving
the entire papers and proceedings of the above Commercial IP Suit. However,
there was no response from the Plaintiff for providing the papers and
proceedings of the above Commercial IP Suit.
4. The Third Party Applicant has, therefore, requested for issuing Certified
Copy of entire Record and Proceedings of the above Commercial IP Suit Lodg.
No. 235 of 2020 (IP Suit No.46 of 2021) so as to challenge the Order dated
26.06.2020 in Appeal. It is stated in the Application that the Applicant is
directly interested to receive the entire papers and proceedings in the above
Commercial IP Suit and no harm or any prejudice would be caused to the
Plaintiff.
5. The Plaintiff has filed Affidavit-in-reply dated 20.08.2025, inter-alia,
stating therein that the Third Party Applicant is signed by Jateen Gupta,
Director J. P. ISCON Private Limited and not the Applicant. It is further stated
that the Applicant has no locus or cause or interest to file the Third Party
Applicant and same is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the
threshold.
6. It is further stated in the reply that the Applicant did not plead before or
make any application before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court asking for the
Plaintiff to produce the said judgment dated 26.06.2020 or papers and
proceedings in Commercial IP Suit if the Applicant desired to challenge the
said order and judgment dated 26.06.2020 and the Applicant would not have
waited till 2025.
7. It is further stated that the present Third Party Application is filed just to
harass the Plaintiff and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Applicant had
..3/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-3- tpacl/19909/2025
miserably failed to make out a case for obtaining entire papers and
proceedings in the Commercial IP Suit No.46 of 2021 (Lodg. No. 235 of
2020), wherein this Hon'ble Court vide order judgment dated 26.06.2020,
inter-alia, held that the Plaintiff's trade mark ISKCON is a 'well-known' trade
mark in India within the meaning provided in Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999. The Plaintiff has denied the contentions of Third Party
Applicant in the Third Party Application and submitted that the Applicant has
miserably failed to make out any case much less a prima-facie and hence, the
Applicants third party application is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed.
8. The Third Party Applicant has filed Affidavit-in-rejoinder dated
12.09.2025. In Para 4 of the rejoinder, it is stated that the Order dated
26.06.2020 in the aforesaid Com IP Suit came to be challenged before this
Hon'ble Court by International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore
('ISKCON') in Appeal (L) No.11675 of 2021. The Appeal came to be disposed
off vide Order dated 20.07.2022. ISKCON Bangalore though not being the
Original Plaintiff had filed the Appeal. It is further stated that the Original
Plaintiff had no real objection to the ISKCON Bangalore filing an Appeal and
challenging the Order dated 26.06.2020, then the Third Party Applicant
merely seeking the papers and proceedings of the suit which resulted in the
Order dated 26.06.2020, the Original Plaintiff cannot possibly have any valid
and sustainable objection.
9. It is further stated that Third Party Application is filed for obtaining the
Certified Copy of records and proceedings of Commercial IP Suit No.46 of
2021 filed by the Original Plaintiff in as much as the Original Plaintiff is
relying on the Order dated 26.06.2020 in the Appeal filed by the Original
Plaintiff against the Third Party Applicant before the Gujarat High Court. The
Third Party Applicant vide letter dated 04.04.2025 had requested the Original
..4/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-4- tpacl/19909/2025
Plaintiff for providing the above papers and proceedings. However, there was
no response to the said letter.
10. It is further stated in the rejoinder that the name of J. P. Infrastructure
Private Limited has been changed to J. P. ISCON Private Limited. Since, the
Appeal in the Ahmedabad High Court was filed by the Original Plaintiff
against J. P. Infrastructure Private Limited, the same name came to be
continued. The resolution is passed on the name of J. P. ISCON Private
Limited. The Ld. Advocate for the Third Party Applicant, further stated that
with regard to the arguments on delay in approaching this Hon'ble Court,
according to the Third Party Applicant there is no delay, assuming whilst
denying there is delay, however, the Original Plaintiff has not established as to
how the delay has caused any prejudice to it. Furthermore, the Appeal is still
pending before the Ahmedabad, Gujarat High Court, which may be taken up
for hearing any time, therefore, at this stage, it is important and crucial to
have the proceedings which the Original Plaintiff is relying upon.
11. The Ld. Advocate for the Third Party Applicant has relied on judgment
reported in 2014(5) Mh.L.J. 754. Particularly Paragraphs numbers 24, 26 and
28 which read as under :-
"24. It is held that at the stage of considering an
application for certified copies, it is not necessary for the
learned Prothonotary and Senior Master to decide the
merits or de-merits of the proposed revocation petition or
any other legal proceedings proposed to be filed by the
respondent. It is held by the learned Commissioner for
taking accounts that the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master and passed the order on the office submission
made to that effect as per the prevalent practice and
procedure and after going through the contents of the
affidavit of the respondent made in support thereof and
after being satisfied has passed an order for issuance of
certified copy only of the papers and proceedings and not
the probate.
..5/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-5- tpacl/19909/2025
26. Question however that arises for consideration of
this Court is whether the learned Prothonotary and
Senior Master was bound to issue notice to the applicant,
the original petitioner in the probate petition before
considering the application of the respondent for
issuance of certified copy. A perusal of Rule 268 indicates
that if the third party applies before the Prothonotary and
Senior Master for search or grant of certified copies of the
papers and proceedings in any suit or matter on payment
of the prescribed fee and charges and if sufficient cause is
shown, the Prothonotary and Senior Master has
discretionary power to grant certified copy of the record
and proceedings.
28. A perusal of the other provisions of High Court
Rules indicates that when any such notice is required to
be issued by the Prothonotary and Senior Master to any
party, there is specific provision in that regard. A perusal
of Rule 268 however does not indicate issuance of any
prior notice to a party to the proceeding before
considering an application of a third party for issuance of
certified copy of the papers and proceedings. In my view
the learned Prothonotary and Senior Master having
exercised his discretion on having been satisfied that
sufficient cause was shown for issuance of certified
copies, this Court shall not interfere with such discretion
exercised by the learned Prothonotary and Senior
Master."
12. The Ld. Advocate for the Third Party Applicant further relied on
judgment reported in 2025 Bombay High Court (O.S.) 2180 in case of Ravi
Arya Versus Reserve Bank of India, particularly Paragraphs number 31 which
reads as under :-
"The Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master has
exercised his discretion and given reasons for exercise of
the said discretion which he is entitled to and the
decision or the reasoning cannot be said to be
unreasonable or impossible and certainly not perverse,
arbitrary or capricious but as noted above, a possible
view. The Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master has
observed that the Respondent has tangible interest in the
matter and if that is the case even if the Applicant is not
a party he can exercise discretion for granting certified
..6/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-6- tpacl/19909/2025
copy. No fault can be found with this reasoning. In fact,
the whole purpose of law is interest reipublicae ut sitfinis
litium, which means it is in the interest of the State that
there should be an end to litigation. The Applicant and
the Respondent were directors in IMTC and have been
declared willful defaulters in respect of the same term
loan, which fact is not disputed. The purpose of the
procedure including Rule l268, in my view is to avoid
multiplicity of the proceedings. The order passed by the
Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master therefore
cannot be said to be erroneous. I, am therefore, not
persuaded by Mr. Nankani's submissions. I therefore, see
no reason to interfere with the order dated 11 th June,
2024 of the Additional Prothonotary & Senior Master."
13. The Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff tenders Affidavit in sur rejoinder inter-
alia, contending that no 'sufficient cause' is shown by the Third Party
Applicant as required under Rule 268 of the Bombay High Court, O.S. Rules,
1980.
14. It is inter-alia, stated in the Sur-rejoinder that it is Applicant's own
admission that the true purpose of the Third Party Application namely its
speculative belief that there is allegedly some admission of pleading in the
year 2021 Suit. This shows that the application is premised on guess work and
conjecture, which cannot amount to "sufficient cause." It is stated that the
Third Party Application is wholly misconceived vexatious and able to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
15. I have heard the Ld. Advocate for the Third Party Applicant as well as
the Ld. Advocate for the Org. Plaintiff and perused the Third Party
Application, Affidavit-in-reply, Affidavit-in-rejoinder and Affidavit-in-Sur-
rejoinder filed by the parities as also 'Memo of Appeal' annexed to the Third
Party Application. On page 11 of Third Party Application which is part of
memo of Appeal, it is stated that recently in Commercial IP Suit Lodg. No
..7/-
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-7- tpacl/19909/2025
235 of 2020 before the High Court of Bombay vide Order dated 26.06.2020,
the Hon'ble Court was pleased to declare the Trademark "ISKCON" of the
Applicants (Plaintiff herein) as a well-known Trademark.
16. The Third Party Applicant has filed this Third Party Application for
issuing Certified Copy of entire Record and Proceedings of the aforesaid
Commercial IP Suit Lodg. No. 235 of 2020 which is now finally numbered as
Commercial IP Suit No. 46 of 2021. It is pertinent to note that Third Party
Applicant vide letter dated 04.04.2025 requested the Original Plaintiff to
provide papers and proceedings of the aforesaid Suit, since they had relied on
the Order dated 26.06.2020 passed in aforesaid Commercial IP Suit. However,
there was no response to the said letter from the Plaintiff. As per Rule 268 of
the Bombay High Court, O.S. Rules, the undersigned is required to see as to
whether sufficient cause is shown by the Third Party Applicant for issuing
Certified Copy of Record and Proceedings as applied for. As far as, the
objection of delay raised by the Plaintiff is concerned, no limitations is
specified in Rule, 268 for making the Third Party Application for Certified
Copy. Furthermore, the Appeal filed by Plaintiff against the Third Party
Applicant is still pending before Gujarat High Court.
17. By Order dated 26.09.2025, the Third Party Applicant was allowed to
amend the cause title of Third Party Application as the name of Third Party
Applicant is changed to J. P. ISCON Private Limited.
18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after taking into
consideration the judgments relied on by the Learned Advocate for the Third
Party Applicant, I am of the opinion that the Third Party Applicant has shown
sufficient cause for issuing Certified Copy of Record and Proceedings of
Commercial IP Suit No.46 of 2021. In my view the third party applicant has
made out a case where the discretion granted under Rule 268 of Bombay High
Court O. S. Rules can be exercised in favour of Third Party Applicant.
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2025 22:09:50 :::
-8- tpacl/19909/2025
19. The third party application is allowed. Office is directed to issue
Certified Copy as mentioned in the application to the third party applicant
upon payment / deposit of the requisite charges.
20. It is made clear that the third party applicant shall use the certified copy
only for the purpose mentioned in the third party application and in
accordance with Rule 271 of Bombay High Court O.S. Rules, and not to part
with the certified copy to any other third party.
21. Third Party Application is disposed of.
05.12.2025 Addl. Registrar (O. S)/
Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master
**************
