[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Utracon Structural System Private ... vs Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd & Ors on 2 April, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~12 & 13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 02.04.2026
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 51/2026
UTRACON STRUCTURAL SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Appellant
Through: Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Ms. Abiha
Zaidi, Ms. Arushi, Ms. Tanya
Sharma, Mr. Pritam Raman Giriya
and Mr. Ashish Bainsla, Advocates
versus
UTRACON CORPORATION PTE LTD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Himanshu Deora, Mr. Sukrit
Kapoor, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Ms.
Garima Singh, Mr. Samarth Kapoor,
Mr. Divya Bhushan, Mr. Kartikay
Dutta, Ms. Anukriti Trivedi and Mr.
Harshit Raj, Advs.
+ FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2026
UCON PT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM PRIVATE LIMITED
(FORMERLY UTRACON STRUCTURAL SYSTEM PRIVATE
LIMITED) .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Siddhartha Iyer, Ms. Shreya
Mathur, Advs.
versus
UTRACON CORPORATION PVT LTD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Himanshu Deora, Mr. Sukrit
Kapoor, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Ms.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP FAO(OS) (COMM) 51/2026 & 52/2026 Page 1 of 5
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.04.2026
14:42:00
Garima Singh, Mr. Samarth Kapoor,
Mr. Divya Bhushan, Mr. Kartikay
Dutta, Ms. Anukriti Trivedi and Mr.
Harshit Raj, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. These appeals arise from orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
I.A. 20676/2025 in CS (COMM) 661/2024. On 12.03.2026, this Court had
limited the challenge in these appeals to the direction contained in paragraph
9 of the order dated 25.08.2025.
2. The appellants in FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2026 herein are Defendant
No.1 to 4, 6 & 7 in the suit and Defendant No.5 in FAO(OS) (COMM)
51/2026. The direction of the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 of the
order dated 25.08.2025 reads as under:
"9. In the meanwhile, the Defendants / Contemnors shall cease
to use the domain name „www.ultraconindia.com‟, the
continued use of which constitutes a clear violation of the
Injunction Order. Further, Defendant No.5 / Contemnor shall
also cease using the name „Ultracon Structural Systems Private
Limited‟ as part of its corporate name and shall make requisite
amendments in its records on the MCA Website within a period
of two weeks."
FAO(OS) (COMM) 52/2026 CM APPL. 15190/2026 CM APPL.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant in FAO(OS)
(COMM) 52/2026 is that the appellant is within its right to use the following
logo , though the contract between the appellant and
the respondent/plaintiff has come to an end by afflux of time.
4. He also states that there is an arbitration clause which binds the
parties and the appellant herein has filed an application under Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act of 1996) before the Supreme
Court. He also states that the appellant has also filed applications under
Order VII Rule 10; Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
("CPC") and under Section 8 of the Act of 1996, which are pending
consideration before the learned Single Judge.
5. In any case, he states the appellant has filed an application under
Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC seeking vacation of the interim order. He do
concede to the fact that, in paragraph 7 of the order dated 27.11.2025, the
submission of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
defendants no. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 has been recorded to the extent that the
defendants no 4, 6 and 7 are complying with the orders dated 07.08.2024
and 25.08.2024 and the website "www.ultraconindia.com" no longer
redirects to Defendant No.1‟s website. He also states, grievance is primarily
with regard to the observation made in paragraph 8 of the order wherein it
has been directed the appellant herein to file an affidavit that the statement
as recorded in paragraph 5 of the order within two weeks.
6. He states that, such an affidavit must not be construed to mean that
the appellant is accepting the stand of using the impugned logo.
7. On this the Court had observed, that the appellant can file the affidavit
without prejudice to its rights and contentions.
8. Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents has no serious objection in that regard. In view of the aforesaid
position, this appeal being FAO(OS) COMM 51/2026 stands disposed of,
giving the liberty to the appellant to press all the applications filed before the
learned Single Judge.
9. We take on record the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that pleadings in the above applications shall be completed on or before
Saturday i.e. 04.04.2026.
10. The applications if any is also disposed of as having become
infructuous.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 51/2026 CM APPL. 14987-14988/2026
11. Insofar as, the above appeal is concerned, the grievance as urged by
the learned counsel for the appellant is primarily that the impugned
directions could not have been given for the simple reason that the appellant
herein is using the trade name „UTRACON‟ as the name of the company in
the record of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and there is no order
restraining the usage as a trade name.
12. She states that in the ad-interim injunction order dated 07.08.2024
there was no direction to the Appellant for rectification or cessation of the
Appellant‟s corporate name and therefore the Appellant is not in contempt
of the said order. She states that the learned Single Judge in the impugned
order has proceeded on an incorrect premise that there was any direction
issued against the Appellant herein in the order dated 07.08.2024.
13. She states that, even otherwise learned Single Judge could not have
granted the directions in an application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A
of the CPC without deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule (1) &
(2) of the CPC, for the simple reason, if the appellant was to implement the
order in the manner directed it would mean that the same shall also include
change in the trade name in the MCA record but if the application under
Order XXXIX Rule (1) & (2) of the CPC is dismissed, the trade name shall
get revived as UTRACON in the MCA record. According to her appropriate
shall be that the order be kept in abeyance till the decision in the
applications under Order XXXIX Rule (1) & (2); Order I Rule 10 and Order
VII Rule 11, are decided.
14. Though, Mr. Malhotra contested the submission made by learned
counsel for the appellant on merit, he states, till such time the applications
filed by the appellant under Order I Rule 10 and also under Order VII Rule
11 and the application filed by the respondent under Order XXXIX Rule (1)
& (2) are decided, without prejudice, he shall not precipitate/seek
implementation of the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge. The submission is taken on record.
15. The counsel for the appellant states if the pleadings in the application
required to be completed, the same shall be done on or before Saturday i.e.,
04.04.2026.
16. The appeal is disposed of and the pending applications are also
disposed of as having become infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 02, 2026/rt
