[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mahesh Value Products Private Limited vs Rikhab Chand Jain & Ors on 16 April, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 16.04.2026
+ FAO (COMM) 88/2026 CM APPL. 19795/2026 CM APPL.
19796/2026
MAHESH VALUE PRODUCTS
PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. C.M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Rahul Vidhani, Mr. Dhruv Sikka, Mr.
Lakshay Gupta, Mr. Saurabh Kumar,
Ms. Mokshita Gautam, Ms. Shreya
Jain, and Ms. Urvashi Arora, Ms.
Yashika Sehgal, Ms Annanya Mehan,
Advs.
versus
RIKHAB CHAND JAIN & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Raao and Ms. Anju
Kumari, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Manas Raghuvanshi and Mr.
Gyanendra Rathour, Advs. for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal lays challenge to an order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the
learned District Judge (Commercial Court-10), Central, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi whereby the learned District Judge has by appointing a Local
Commissioner, on an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, CPC
filed by the respondent nos. 1& 2 restrained the appellant from using the
trademark 'TT' in the following manner:
" In the facts and circumstances as already discussed a prima
facie case appears in favour of plaintiff. Initial balance of
convenience also appears in his favour as plaintiff is registered
trademark owner and prima facie defendant do not appear to have
any right to store or sell counterfeit goods containing mark of
plaintiff.
In the facts and circumstances, till further orders, by way of
an ad-interim ex-parte injunction, the Defendants, their directors,
partners, servants, principals, agents, stockiest, associates or any
of them acting for, claiming under or through or on behalf or in
concert with them arc restrained from manufacturing, selling,
offering for sale, advertising, directly of indirectly dealing in
goods bearing the trademark
or
any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff
No. 1' s trademark.
They are further restrained from infringing the trademark of
the Plaintiff No.1 in the work "TI" by reproducing the same in
any manner on the goods manufactured by the Defendants or on
stationary, letter heads, Guarantee Cards, packing materials used
by the Defendants.
They are further restrained from adopting/using,
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or
indirectly dealing under the mark and name
which is
visually similar to the Plaintiff No. 1's trademark TT/ so as
to misrepresent their services as those of the Plaintiff No. 1 and
from doing any other thing as may cause confusion or deception
leading to passing off their services and business as those of the
Plaintiff No. 1."
2. The submission of Mr. C.M. Lall, learned senior counsel for the
appellant is that the said order has been passed by the learned District Judge
in a suit/plaint where the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein have concealed the
material facts.
3. According to him, the plaint has been filed seeking a restraint order
against the appellant with regard to the trademarks TT/TT Tasty Tasty/Tasty
Tasty, by concealing that the appellant is the prior adopter and long-standing
registered proprietor of the mark 'TT' in respect of Asafoetida tracing its
adoption to the year 1895 through its predecessors and had registration as
early as 1950 and also extensive portfolio of registrations across classes
even thereafter.
4. He states that the appellant has been continuously and extensively
using this mark and has substantial goodwill and reputation. In this regard he
has drawn our attention to various documents filed along with the appeal.
His submission is that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had issued a legal notice
on 05.05.2017 of which no reference has been given in the plaint.
5. In fact, the appellant had replied to the legal notice wherein it is
specifically mentioned that the mark 'TT' with regard to the aforesaid
product has been adopted in the year 1895 with registration dat ing as early
as 1950. It is because of concealment of important facts including issuance
of legal notice and the reply of the appellant, the impugned order has been
passed.
6. He also states that the impugned order is also passed overlooking and
without considering the appellant's statutory right as a registered proprietor;
its prior use and existence of multiple prior litigations between the parties.
7. In any case, it is his submission that the Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that an action for infringement is not maintainable
between two registered proprietors as it is the case of the respondent nos. 1
and 2 herein that they also have registrations with regard to the mark 'TT'.
He states that the effect of the order is very drastic as the same has resulted
in the closure of the business of the appellant with respect to the trademark
'TT'.
8. He states that nothing precluded the District Judge to issue a day 's
notice to the appellant herein; hear the appellant and then decide the
application filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 CPC. Moreover, there was no urgency as the plaint was actually
filed in the month of December, 2025 and listed before the learned District
Judge only in the month of March, 2026 i.e., three months after the filing of
the plaint. He states that he has no objection if the matter is remanded back
to the learned District Judge for him to consider the application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC afresh and decide the same after hearing both
the parties but till such time, the injunction order which has been passed be
vacated.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Mukul Raao, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 would justify the order passed by the learned District Judge.
According to him there is no concealment of facts as sought to be alleged by
Mr. Lall.
10. He also states that even the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are registered
owners of the mark 'TT' and are using the same in all classes w.e.f. 1968.
He has drawn our attention to the impugned order to contend that the mark
which was registered in the year 1950 has lapsed and as such cannot be
relied upon by the appellant. He also states that concededly as per the appeal
itself, the registration of the mark which is still valid was registered only on
05.05.1979 and in that sense the usage is subsequent to the usage of the
mark by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein. This submission is contested by
Mr. C.M. Lall, by stating that the mark which has been registered on
05.05.1979 has the usage from 1921.
11. On this, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submits that
the said mark is a composite mark as different from the mark 'TT' of the
respondent nos. 1 and 2, which is in usage since the year 1968.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, we find the only
reason given by the learned District Judge, for allowing the application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC can be seen at internal page 24 of
the impugned order which we have already reproduced above.
13. The facts which have been urged by Mr. C.M. Lall, learned senior
counsel for the appellant have not been averred in the plaint . Prima facie, we
are of the view, that in a matter of this nature it is required that the Court has
all the facts before it for a considered decision. For this purpose, the Court
should have issued a short notice to the appellant for its appearance. Surely,
the appellant is justified to contend that absence of notice has resulted in the
impugned order, which causes prejudice to the appellant.
14. This Court is of the view that appropriate shall be that the matter is
remanded back to the learned District Judge for a fresh consideration of the
application filed by the respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 CPC.
15. At this stage, Mr. Lall, states that the appellant shall file the reply to
the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the
respondent within two [2] days from today i.e., on or before 18.04.2026. If
that be so, rejoinder, if any, be filed by the respondent no. 1 and respondent
no. 2 on or before 20.04.2026.
16. The learned District Judge shall hear the counsel for the parties on the
application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC on 20.04.2026 and
decide the said application on or before 23.04.2026 or immediately
thereafter.
17. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1
and 2 submits that till the decision on the application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 CPC is taken by the learned District Judge in view of the
order passed by this Court today, the interim order passed by the learned
District Judge be modified to the extent that the impugned order restraining
the appellant shall not be applicable to the mark 'TT' relatable to the
products Asafoetida and Appalam. Noting this submission, we modify the
impugned order to that extent.
18. At this stage, Mr. C.M. Lall also states that the goods which have
been seized by the learned Local Commissioner as shown in Part A and Part
B the material/goods in Part A be retained by the respondent nos. 1 and 2
and the material/goods shown in Part B, the appellants shall unpack the
cartons/material/goods and retain the food products Asafoetida and Appalam
and sell the same in the market by maintaining the accounts. The learned
counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 has agreed to the submission of Mr.
C.M. Lall.
19. It is made clear that the present order shall be subject to the final
determination of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by
the learned District Judge.
20. The appeal is disposed of. Pending applications have become
infructuous and are dismissed.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 16, 2026/msh
