[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr vs Mr. Rajesh Sharma & Ors on 3 February, 2026
Author: C.Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA(COMM) 695/2025, CM APPL. 77901/2025 & CM APPL.
79733/2025
RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Ms.
Jaspreet S Kapur, Ms. Shweta and Mr.
Wasim Ansari, Advs.
versus
MR. RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 03.02.2026
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This is a somewhat peculiar case in which the learned
Commercial Court has dismissed a suit on the sole ground that the
Local Commissioner1 who was appointed in the matter had visited two
premises of the respondent, though she was directed, by the order
appointing her, to visit one.
2. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the learned District
Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts2 in CS(Comm)
"LC" hereinafter
2 "learned Commercial Court" hereinafter
667/20243. The suit alleged infringement, by the respondents, of
copyright and design rights held by the appellants in respect of Tower
Fans.
3. On 1 June 2024, the learned Commercial Court granted an ex
parte ad interim injunction in favour of the appellants and against the
respondents and appointed LCs to visit the premises of the
respondents and effected search and seizure.
4. The order dated 15 November 2025 of the learned Commercial
Court, under challenge in this appeal, notes that fact that the LC, who
is a practicing advocate, visited premises other than those which she
was required to visit as per the order appointing her. In this regard,
we deem it appropriate to reproduce the following passages from the
impugned judgment, thus:
"To the utter surprise of this Court it is found that
apparently Ld. LC Ms. Charu Aneja, in collusion with the two
plaintiffs and Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs, actually raided a place
qua which no direction was issued. This act of the above plaintiffs
is fraudulent and is in clear violation of directions issued by Ld.
Predecessor of this Court. If the plaintiffs were interested in
carrying out search and seizure/raid at 2 places, they could have
requested the Court to add additional addresses. Once the order
specifically mentions that raid has to be carried out at one place
only, it does not lie either with the plaintiff and their counsels or
with the Local Commissioner who is actually extension of the
Court by becoming eyes and ears of the Court to transgress the
direction issued. This act of the plaintiffs and the Local
Commissioner is not only a grave and serious misconduct but is
also akin to Contempt of Court.
Through a catena of judgments not only Hon'ble Supreme
Court but Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has ruled that Courts,
especially Civil Courts, are Courts of Equity and one who seeks
3 Rashi Santosh Soni and Anr. v. Rajesh Sharma and Anr.
equity must do equity. Scandalous litigations, scandalous
pleadings and scandalous actions and omissions in Courts in
violation of judicial directions are not to be accepted. I do not find
any plea whatsoever that plaintiffs had asked for carrying out
search and seizure at two places including the address of Defendant
no. 4."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. The learned Commercial Court has, thereafter, referred to
various judgments dealing with clever drafting and creating illusory
causes of action by suppressing material facts and camouflaging
pleadings, filing of frivolous and scandalous litigations, and the like.
We are completely at a loss as to how these decisions are of any
relevance in the present case.
6. Following reference to these judgments, the learned
Commercial Court has concluded the impugned order, thus:
"In the light of the above celebrated judgments and the fate
of suits is sealed by the fraudulent conduct of plaintiffs. Such
litigants do not have any right to continue this suit. Suit of the
plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. Owing to fraudulent and
scandalous conduct of the plaintiffs they are imposed a cost of Rs.1
lakh each to be deposited with Advocates' Welfare Fund, Delhi Bar
Association. Both the plaintiffs are imposed additional cost of
Rs.25,000/- to be paid to defendant no. 1 Rajesh Sharma who was
constrained to engage a counsel Sh. Kamal Garg.
In case costs are not deposited within 2 weeks the
President, Secretary of Delhi Bar Association and Ld. Counsel for
Defendant no. 1 are at liberty to move execution petition. Copy of
the order be sent to them.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. It is obvious, at a bare glance, that the impugned order cannot
sustain for a minute. We have queried of learned Counsel for the
respondents as to whether there is any provision of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 under which such an order could have been passed.
He is unable to refer us to any provision.
8. We, too, are unaware of any provision under which, because an
LC visits premises other than which she, or he, is required to visit, the
suit of the plaintiff could be dismissed.
9. Besides, we note that the impugned order makes adverse
observations against the appellants, its Counsel as well as the LC.
Findings of collusion between the LC and the appellants' Counsel
have been returned, without an iota of supportive material cited in that
regard or, for that matter, even the basis of the said assumptions of
collusion being forthcoming.
10. Worse, the learned Commercial Court did not even deem it
appropriate to afford an opportunity to the appellants' Counsel or to
the LC to show cause, before returning such findings.
11. Findings of collusion are extremely serious. When returned
against practicing Counsel, they take on a different hue altogether.
12. The Supreme Court has, times without number, cautioned
courts to be circumspect in their observations especially while
commenting on practicing Counsel. The Bar and the Bench are but
two limbs of one justice ecosystem, and mutual respect and concern
for each other is essential to ensure that the stream of justice flows on,
clear and unsullied.
13. We record our unhappiness at the findings of the learned
Commercial Court, insofar as they are adverse to the Counsel
appearing for the appellants, the LC and allege collusion between
them. We find no basis whatsoever to support the finding of collusion.
The said findings, accordingly, stand expunged.
14. In fact, we are of the opinion that the LC acted with utmost
propriety. It is normal for a Court, while appointing an LC, to
authorise the LC not only to visit the premises disclosed in the plaint
but also any other premises at which infringing goods may be found to
be present. In the present case, at the time of appointing the LC, this
additional authorisation was not entered in the order. The LC, in fact,
despite finding infringing goods at the first premises, did not seize the
goods because she was not authorised to do so. We do not see how, in
such circumstances, any impropriety in conduct could be alleged
against the LC.
15. We are unable to sustain the impugned order either on facts or
in law.
16. The order is accordingly quashed and set aside.
17. CS (Comm) 667/2024 stands restored to its original position.
18. List the suit before the learned Commercial Court on 25
February 2026 in order for further proceedings in accordance with
law.
19. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
FEBRUARY 3, 2026/AR
