Gujarat High Court

New Narbada Divya Jyoti Impex vs Narmada Agrobase Limited on 23 June, 2025

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                                                    C/AO/101/2025         ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

                                                                                                                           undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                             R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 101 of 2025
                                                            With
                                          CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
                                           In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 101 of 2025
                        ==========================================================
                                                    NEW NARBADA DIVYA JYOTI IMPEX
                                                               Versus
                                                      NARMADA AGROBASE LIMITED
                        ==========================================================
                        Appearance:
                        ADITYA R GUNDECHA(8869) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        MR. HEMANG S TRIVEDI(10045) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                        PRATIK K CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE WITH MS. BHUMIKA TRIVEDI,
                        ADVOCATE (8359) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                        ==========================================================
                          CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
                                SUNITA AGARWAL
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
                                               Date : 23/06/2025
                                                ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)

1. The facts of the case are as under:-

1.1 The Plaintiff, Narmada Agrobase Limited, the

Respondent herein is engaged in the manufacture and

marketing of cattle feed and related products under various

trademarks adopting the term "NARMADA" since 2013,

including the mark "Gay Chhap Narmada Pashu Aahar,"

which is registered under Class 31. The Plaintiff contended

that it has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the

relevant trade channels and that the Appellant-Defendant's

use of similar marks causes confusion and dilutes its brand

identity. It was further alleged that the Defendant's

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

packaging, marketing material, and product get-up closely

resemble that of the Plaintiff, leading to instances of mistaken

identity in the market.

1.2 According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant began using the

impugned marks in early 2023, prompting the issuance of a

legal notice dated 16.01.2023. It is also stated that a trader

mistakenly purchased the Defendant's product believing it to

be of the Plaintiff's, reinforcing the allegation of deceptive

similarity.

1.3 The Defendant/Appellant, having been served with the

summons, filed a Written Statement and reply to the interim

injunction application, contesting the claim. The Defendant

contended that it has been using the mark "New Narbada" in

Rajasthan since 2022 and is independently known in the local

market. It is contended that the terms "Narmada" and

"Narbada" are visually and phonetically distinct and that the

cow device used is also materially different from that of the

Plaintiff's trademark. The appellant argued that its mark is

not deceptively similar and is not likely to cause confusion or

mislead consumers.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

1.4 It was further asserted that the Plaintiff's rights in the

word "Narmada" are not exclusive as per the conditions in the

trademark registration, and several trademark applications

filed by the Plaintiff are either opposed or pending. The

Defendant has also applied for registration of the mark "New

Narbada," which is under objection by a third party not

involved in the present suit.

1.5 The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Ahmedabad (Rural) passed an order dated 29.03.2025 in

Exh.7 upon the Plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 &

2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by which the

Defendant has been restrained in conducting its business

activities by using the trademark "New Narbada & New

Narbada Gold with device of cow".

1.6 The Appellant contends that the impugned order is

erroneous in law and fact, fails to properly appreciate the

Defendant's distinctiveness, and causes irreparable harm to

its business operations. The appellant has, accordingly,

challenged the said order in appeal with the following

prayers:-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

"(A) To admit / allow the present Appeal from Order;

(B) To quash and set aside the order dated 29/03/2025 passed by the before learned Additional District & Session Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Dholka in Trade mark Civil Suit no. 01 of 2023;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal From Order, to stay execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 29/03/2025 passed by the before learned Additional District & Session Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Dholka in Trade mark Civil Suit no. 01 of 2023;

(D) Ad-interim relief in terms of paragraph may be granted;

(E) To grant such other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Mr. Aditya R.Gundecha, learned advocate appearing for

the Appellant, apart from contending that the trademark is

not deceptively similar, has also contended that the impugned

judgment and order does not contain any reasons by which

the conclusion at Paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment

has been reached by the learned Trial Court.

3. Mr. Pratik A.Chaudhary, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the Respondent-Plaintiff on the other-hand

contended that the learned Trial Court has correctly reached

the conclusion in Paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment

and had taken the Court through the respective trademarks

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

and the material considered by the learned Trial Court in

order to support the injunction granted by the learned Trial

Court.

4. After going through the material on record and the

submissions of the parties before us, we are of the opinion

that it is not possible for us to test the correctness of the

impugned judgment and order for the sole reason that the

perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that

there are no reasons in support of the conclusion at

Paragraph No.13 thereof.

4.1 The reasons are those which connect the facts of a

particular case with the law, which may be applicable to such

facts. In the present case, learned Trial Court has, after

discussing the facts of the case and the purported law

applicable thereto has reached a conclusion without

traversing the territory of analysis and explanation as to how

the law discussed in the foregoing portion of the impugned

judgment becomes applicable to the facts of the instant case,

based upon which, the conclusion that has been reached by

the said court could in fact be reached. Therefore, the reasons

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

forming the heart of the impugned judgment are sadly

lacking, making the impugned judgment thoroughly

unintelligible.

5. In Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others

reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836, the Apex Court has held as

under :-

"28. In the context of the effect upon the rights of aggrieved persons, as members of a public service who are entitled to just and reasonable treatment, by reason of protections conferred upon them by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which are available to them throughout their service, it was incumbent on the Selection Committee to have stated reasons in a manner which would disclose how the record of each officer superseded stood in relation to records of others who were to be preferred, particularly as this is practically the only remaining visible safeguard against possible injustice and arbitrariness in making selections. If that had been done, facts on service records of officers considered by the Selection Committee would have been correlated to the conclusions reached. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. We think that it is not enough to say that preference should be given because a certain kind of process was gone through by the Selection Committee. This is all that the supposed statement of reason's amounts to. We, therefore, think that the mandatory provisions of Regulation 5(5) were not complied with. We think that reliance was rightly placed by respondents on two decisions of this Court relating to the effect of non-compliance with such mandatory provisions."

(Emphasis added)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

5.1 In Nadeen Andraws Vs. Reginald Anslow reported in

2016 BCCA 51, the Court of Appeal (British Columbia) had

recorded as under :-

"Adequate reasons for judgment 'fulfil certain functions...they justify and explain the result, particularly to the losing party, provide a basis for appellate review, and satisfy the public interest in demonstrating that justice has been done."

5.2 In Sant Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Modern

Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and Others

reported in (2010) 13 SCC 336, the Apex Court has held as

under:-

"27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice.

'3... The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind.

The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/AO/101/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025

undefined

indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected."

5.3 The aforesaid decision has been followed by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner

of Income Tax II Vs. Surat Beverages Limited reported in

2013 (0) AIJEL-HC 231445.

6. In view of the aforesaid conspectus of law, which is quite

axiomatic, we have no hesitation in setting aside the

impugned judgment as being bereft of reasons and hence,

unintelligible and unsustainable.

7. In view of the forgoing reasons, the instant appeal is

allowed and the impugned order passed in Trade Mark Civil

Suit No.01 of 2023 dated 29.03.2025, by the learned

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) is