Karnataka High Court
Flyola India Private Limited vs Ani Technologies Private Limited on 22 May, 2025
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
COMAP No. 256 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.256 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
FLYOLA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 2013,
INDRAPRASTH AEROSPACE KNOWLEDGE PARK,
SECTOR-77,
DELHI JAIPUR HIGHWAY, (NH-08), GURGAON,
HARYANA, INDIA - 122 004.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE ANKUR JAIN,
S/O MR. JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
(BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
High Court SRI.SANDEEP LAHIRI., ADVOCATE)
of Karnataka
AND:
ANI TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,
REGENT INSIGNIA, NO.414,
3RD FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK,
17TH MAIN,
100 FEET ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
COMAP No. 256 of 2025
KORMANGALA,
BANGALORE - 560 034.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN., ADVOCATE A/W
MS.GEETHANJALI K.V., ADVOCATE)
THIS COMAP/COMMERCIAL APPEAL UNDER
SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.04.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXXVII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-
88), IN COMMERCIAL OS NO.1147/2024 WHEREBY THE
RESPONDENTS APPLICATION IN IA NO.1 FILED U/O
XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2 CPC IS ALLOWED AND
APPELLANT'S APPLICATION IN IA NO.5 FILED U/O
XXXIX RULE 4 CPC IS DISMISSED AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE IA NO. 1 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 AND 2
ALLOW THE APPELLANTS APPLICATION IN IA NO. 5
FILED U/O XXXIX RULE 4 CPC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
COMAP No. 256 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD)
This appeal is filed calling in question the order
dated 19.04.2025 in COM. O.S.No.1147/2024 on the
file the LXXXVII Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru [for short, 'the Commercial Court']. The
Commercial Court, by the impugned order dated
19.04.2025, has allowed the respondent's
application, I.A.No.1 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and
2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, 'the
CPC'], while rejecting the appellant's application,
I.A.No.5 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC,
restraining the appellant from "infringing and passing
of the plaintiff's trademark "OLA" till the disposal of
the suit. The Commercial Court has thus confirmed
the ex parte order granted on 28.08.2024.
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
2. Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, the learned Senior
counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Ravi Raghavan,
the learned counsel for the respondent, are heard on
the appellant's request for a grant of ad interim order.
The learned Senior counsel and the learned counsel
propose to raise different grounds for and against the
appellant's grievance with the Commercial Court's
impugned order dated 19.04.2025.
3. However, it transpires from the respective
submissions that the arguments before the
Commercial Court on the applications were
concluded on 29.11.2024 and the applications were
reserved for Orders and there is a divergence in
submissions on the alleged delay in the Commercial
Court pronouncing the impugned order. Sri. D. R.
Ravishankar contends that there was no further
hearing after such date and the orders are
pronounced on 19.04.2025 after almost 5 months,
with Sri. Ravi Raghavan asserting that the
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
applications were listed on 29.01.2025 for Orders,
but not pronounced and adjourned to be called on
19.04.2025 for Orders.
4. Crucially, Sri. D. R. Ravishankar, relying
upon the time lag between the dates when the
learned counsels were heard and the impugned order
is proposed, proposes to canvass that the
sustainability of the impugned order is seriously
jeopardized as the true import of a set of very
material circumstances such as that the appellant
demonstrably is in business from the year 2002, that
'OLA' is a common family name from a particular
community in North India, that the appellant is only
operating aviation services and the respondent is in
surface transport services; that the registration of
appellant's distinct trademark is not challenged are
not examined though referred to cursorily. Sri Ravi
Raghavan rebuts this canvass.
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
5. On a careful consideration of all the
circumstances, and including the submission that
the respondent has begun proceedings for contempt
against the appellant for violating the ex parte interim
order granted on 28.08.2024 and the repercussions
that could be, this Court is of the view that the
Commercial Court in the fitness of things must hear
the appellant and the respondent afresh on the
applications and decide on the merits within a
timeframe leaving open all questions to be addressed
while also observing that this Court is not interfering
with the ex parte interim order dated 28.08.2024. Sri.
D. R. Ravishankar and Sri. Ravi Raghavan are also
heard in this regard, and hence the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part, and the
Commercial Court's impugned order dated
19.04.2025 is dissolved restoring the
applications for reconsideration calling
upon the Commercial Court to take up the
NC: 2025:KHC:18322-DB
restored applications for consideration on
09.06.2025 and dispose of these
applications by 09.07.2025 being
uninfluenced by the outcome in this appeal
and any observation made in the impugned
order 19.04.2025.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
SMJ
