Madhya Pradesh High Court

M/S Rajlaxmi Oils Through Sole ... vs Kriti Nutrients Ltd. on 6 October, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

1 M.A. No. 5004/2023 & 5126/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 6th OF OCTOBER, 2025
MISC. APPEAL No. 5004 of 2023
KRITI NUTRIENTS LTD.
Versus
M/S RAJLAKSHMI OILS
Appearance:

Shri Vikram Malviya and Shri Rajendra Bhansari, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
.............................................................................................................................
MISC. APPEAL No. 5126 of 2023
M/S RAJLAXMI OILS THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR MR. KISHORE
KUMAR
Versus
KRITI NUTRIENTS LTD.
Appearance:

Shri Bhashkar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vikram Malviya and Shri Rajendra Bhansari, learned counsel for the respondent.

.............................................................................................................................

ORDER

Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi

Having regard to the similitude in the controversy involved in these

miscellaneous appeals, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this

common order.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

02. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5004/2023 filed under Order 43 Rule 1

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred for short „CPC‟) r/w

Section 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred for short „the Act of

1999‟) and Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred for short „the

Act of 1957‟) has been preferred against the impugned order dated 04.07.2023

passed by Commercial Court, Indore in Commercial Case No. 68/2022 on

application (I.A. No. 01/2023) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC

filed on behalf of appellant - Kriti Nutrients Ltd. has been dismissed.

03. Appellant-M/s Rajlaxmi Oils in Miscellaneous Appeal No.

5126/2023 is also aggrieved by the impugned order on the ground that the

learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the controversy involved in right

perspective. For the sake of convenience, facts have been taken from

Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5004/2023.

04. Draped in brevity, admitted facts of the case are that

appellant/plaintiff - Kriti Nutrients Ltd. on 09.02.2021 had filed Civil Suit No.

248/2021 (new number - Commercial Case No. 68/2022) before the learned

Commercial Court, Indore for declaration and injunction under the provisions of

the Act of 1999 and the Act of 1957. Along with the suit, he has also filed an

application for temporary injunction (I.A. No. 1/2023) mentioning the fact that

appellant-Kriti Nutrients Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

Act, 1956 and is a manufacturer, marketer and exporter of all kinds of Goods

and Services including, all kinds of Edible Oils like, Soya Bean Vegetable Oil,

Soya Bean Refined Oils, Coconut Oils, Mustard Oils, Till Oils, Groundnut Oils,

Sunflower Oils, Rice Bran Oils, Rap Seed Oils etc. under the trade name

"KIRTI" with distinctive and fancy trade mark. The said goods of appellant are

sold openly, extensively and continuously throughout India and abroad by the

appellant due to the standard quality of said goods and long experience. Trade

mark "KRITI", "KRUTI" and "d`fr" is an essential feature, along with

distinctive art work.

05. The respondent-M/s. Rajlaxmi Oils is engaged in business of

manufacturing and marketing of the goods namely, all kinds of Edible Oils with

trade mark/packaging/trade dress/label "KRITI" i.e. suffix words, written in

very small size of fonts i.e. "SHRI", "SPECIAL" and "LITE". The respondent is

manufacturing and selling impugned goods under identical and deceptively

similar trade mark/package/trade dress "KRITI/ d`fr" with impugned

substantial and material reproduction of art work/label of "KRITI" is of the

appellant's artwork/ label of "KRITI" "d`fr". Earlier companies of the appellant

with distinctive trade name and trade mark KRITI, was incorporated in the year

1990 with trade name "Kriti Plastics Pvt. Ltd." for various goods/ services. The

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

name of the said company, "Kriti Plastics Pvt. Ltd." was changed to "Kriti

Plastics Ltd." in the year 1992. Subsequently, then name of the company, "Kriti

Plastics Ltd." was changed to "Kriti Agro & Plastics Industries Ltd." in the year

1992. The appellant company, "Kriti Agro & Plastics Industries Ltd." was

changed to "Kriti (India) Ltd." in the year 1995. In the year 1996, one Solvent

division was also incorporated with trade name "Kriti Sadev Pvt. Ltd." by the

"Kriti Industries (India) Ltd." The name of "Kriti Sadev Ltd." was changed to

"Kriti Nutrients Pvt. Ltd." in the year 2007. The name of the company "Kriti

Nutrients Pvt. Ltd." was changed to "Kriti Nutrients Ltd." in the year 2007. In

the year 2007, one Auto Engineering and Plastic division was also incorporated

with trade name "Kriti Auto & Engineerings Plastics Pvt. Ltd." by the "Kriti

Industries (India) Ltd." Thereafter, by virtue of order of the Hon'ble High Court

of M.P. Indore Bench, Dated 25.11.2009 in Company Petition No. 14/2008,

under the scheme of arrangement/compromise, there was division/demerger of

company Kriti Industries (India) Limited, resulting into two demerged

companies Kriti Auto and Engineering Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Kriti Nutrients

Limited on 25.01.2010. The appellant is carrying on an established business of

manufacturing, marketing and exporting of said goods with trade

name/trademark "KRITI/ d`fr". The appellant has honestly and bonafidely

adopted distinctive and fancy trade name/trade mark "KRITI/ "d`fr" in the year

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

1990 and started the use of same in open market in the year 1990 i.e.

12.03.1990. In the year 1990, looking to market demand and trend, the appellant

has also adopted and created unique artistic work for label containing and

consisting trade name/trade mark "KRITI/ d`fr". Being first adopter and user of

trade name/trade name/trademark "KRITI d`fr", the appellant become the true

and lawful owner/proprietor of trade name/trademark "KRITI/d`fr". The

appellant has various packaging/trade dress/labels. The essential feature in trade

name/trademark/packaging/trade dress/label is "KRITI/d`fr". The original

artistic works of said mark were prepared in the years 1990/1995/1996/2010.

Due to long and concurrent use and because of standard quality of said goods

maintained by the appellant, said mark has acquired tremendous reputation and

goodwill in the market. The appellant is using said mark since long in respect of

said goods, which has been extensively advertised through various media and

large sums of money is spent each year for the advertisement and promotion of

said goods of the appellant. The appellant to protect such reputation and

goodwill and to get statutory rights/protection, has also filed various trademark

applications for trademark "KRITI, "KRUTI" for various goods/services for

registering its said distinctive mark. The registrations of the appellant's said

mark for various goods/services are valid and in force till date. Appellant is the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

prior, honest, and bona-fide adopter and also prior, long and continues user of

said mark. The appellant, with an annual sales turnover of around 520.38 Crore

for the year 2019-2020, is the flagship company.

06. The allegation of the appellant is that respondent got its Copyright

registration by suppressing material and vital facts. The appellant is challenging

cannot claim any right under the provisions of The Act of 1957 for impugned

artistic work containing trademark KIRTI. Impugned mark adopted by the

respondent is phonetically, visually, substantially, and structurally identical and

deceptively similar with said mark of the appellant. It is the common practice in

the trade that order in respect of the goods is being always placed orally i.e. by

way of the spoken use of any trade mark that is to say people would always

ask/demand/place the order of the particular goods/services with trademark.

Thus, the oral/spoken use of impugned identical and deceptively similar mark is

also breach of Intellectual Property Rights of the appellant's said mark. It has

been further alleged that comparison between said mark and impugned mark,

clearly demonstrates that the respondent has ditto to ditto imitated/copied said

mark of the appellant and made substantial and material reproduction of artwork

of the appellant's label to infringe the mark. On these aforesaid grounds,

appellant made a prayer for allowing his application to restrain the respondent,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

its proprietor, partners, sister concerns, associates, servants, agents, retailers,

stockiest, dealers, distributors, printers and publishers by an order of temporary

injunction from selling, printing, publishing, using, infringing of Copyright and

Trademark and impugned goods namely, all kinds of Edible Oil under trade

mark/packaging/trade dress "SHRI KIRTI", "SPECIAL KIRTI" and "KIRTI

LITE" with an essential feature prefix and/or suffix KIRTI and/or any other

mark, which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the appellant's

registered trade mark "KRITI" and to restrain the respondent from committing

an act of Infringement of the appellant's registered Trademark "KRITI" and

"d`fr". Further to restrain the respondent, its proprietor, partners, sister cancers,

associates, servants, agents, retailers, stockiest, dealers, distributors, printers and

publishers from using trade mark/packaging/trade dress "SHRI KIRTI",

"SPECIAL KIRTI" and "KIRTI LITE with an essential feature prefix and/or

suffix KIRTI and/or any other trade mark, which may be identical with and/or

deceptively similar with the appellant's trade name "KRITI" and distinctive and

fancy trade mark "KRITI/KRUTI/d`fr" and restrain them from

manufacturing/marketing impugned goods namely, all kinds of Edible Oil by

using trade mark "SHRI KIRTI", "SPECIAL KIRTI and "KIRTI LITE" with an

essential feature prefix and/or suffix KIRTI in any manner and thereby, restrain

them from committing an act of passing off and enable others to pass off

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

impugned goods namely, all kinds of Edible Oil as and for said goods namely,

all kinds of Edible Oil of the appellant with trade mark/packaging/trade dress

"SHRI KIRTI", "SPECIAL KIRTI" and KIRTI LITE" with an essential feature

prefix and/or suffix KIRTI and restrain them from diluting the immense

reputation and goodwill of trade name "KRITI" and distinctive and fancy trade

mark "KRITI/KRUTI/d`fr" of the appellant.

07. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial

Court has committed an error of law in coming to conclusion that appellant has

no prima facie case, which is against pleadings and evidence on record and,

therefore, it is perverse and against settled principles of law. He further submits

that learned Court below has committed error of law in not considering the fact

that appellants are being prior user of the Trademarks since 1990. In para-34 of

impugned order, it has been held that impugned mark of respondent/defendant is

similar to the appellant and deceptively identical, but learned Court below has

rejected the application by holding that who is prior user of the trademark in

dispute i.e. "KRITI", "KRUTI", "d`fr", "KRITI" is yet to be decided on

evidence. Ignoring the cogent and unrebutted evidence on record, such a finding

is not only perverse and bad in law and against the settled principles of law.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

08. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that when

consumer is of a same area and the mark is similar that too in its sound and is

phonetically, by design, by font type, by colour combination, it will prima facie

bound to create confusion and deception to the consumer using the product and

hence the rejection of the application is bad in law.

09. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned

trial Court has committed an error of law in rejecting the application only on the

ground that because the invoices of 2004 to 2007 are reflecting GST, therefore,

the same cannot be treated to be evidence of prior use, but such finding is

perverse. Invoices which has been made basis of doubt are downloaded from the

official website of the department after 2017. Hence, the word "GST" has come

on printouts. Learned Court below ignoring such technical fact has given undue

weightage to the aforesaid fact while coming to the conclusion that without

evidence prima facie use cannot be presumed. Application has rejected on

flimsy grounds, therefore, the finding by the Court below is perverse and

requires interference. On these miscellaneous submissions, learned counsel

prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order and allowing

the application of the appellant by restraining the respondents, its proprietor,

partners, sister concerns, associates, servants, agents, retailers, stockiest, dealers,

distributors, printers and publishers by an order of temporary injunction from

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

selling, printing, publishing, using, infringing of Copyright and Trademark of

the appellants.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supporting the

impugned order on I.A. No. 1/2023 submits that the order is a well reasoned and

passed after scrutinising and appreciating the material available on record in

right perspective. He further submits that interim orders should not be lightly

interfered with by the appellate Court unless it is perverse. Since the appellant

could not make out any case for issuing temporary injunction against them by

adducing relevant materials, hence no fault can be found in the impugned order.

On these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.

11. Heard and considered the rival submissions raised at Bar and

perused the record.

12. In the instant case, a dispute is with regard to the use of deceptively

similar trademark by the respondent. Both the parties have raised rival claims.

Learned Court below though has made passing remark in para 34 of the

impugned order that from the pleadings and documents as well as perusal of

both the marks, trademark "KRITI", "KRUTI", "d`fr" and KRITI/SHRI KIRTI

prima facie seems to be similar, but the Court below in giving finding with

regard to the prima facie case has further gone to the fact as to who is the prior

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

user/adopter of the trademark. After perusing the material available on record in

para-36 of the impugned order, it has been mentioned in order to prove prior

user of trademark "KIRTI", plaintiff along with the plaint has produced certain

invoices of different dates from the year 2007 to 2017 at page No. 154 - 171

which finds mention of GST number. The term GST was not in existence in the

year 2007 to 2014, which came into force on 1 st July, 2017. Based on this,

learned trial Court came to the conclusion that invoices cannot be made basis to

prove a prima facie case of passing of an infringement in appellant/plaintiff‟s

favour. Learned trial Court has also taken into account that in the month of

April, 2019, respondent has filed trademark application in Clause 30 for

trademark KIRTI with substantial and material reproduction of art work as to

that of said mark and on knowing this, appellant have filed interlocutory

application before the Registrar, Trademarks to reject the application moved on

behalf of the respondent. The learned Trial Court has further mentioned that in

the month of July, 2020, appellant/plaintiff(s) came to know that respondent has

filed two more trademark applications for registration of the impugned mark

and on this knowledge, he has filed interlocutory application / petition before

Registrar of Trademark for rejection of applications moved on behalf of the

respondent. It has also been taken note of appellants‟ case is that respondent has

claimed to be registered proprietor of Artistic Work containing trademark SHRI

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

appellants are in process to file necessary cancellation petition impugned

wrongly and invalidly registered copyright in favour of the respondent, but no

such documents have been filed by the appellant on record to substantiate his

allegations. Invoices produced by the appellant prima facie proved prior use of

mark/label KRITI and "d`fr" have not been considered for finding a prima facie

case in favour of the appellant coupled with admissions in the pleading of the

appellant that the defendant is using the said mark since the year 2012.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned trial Court came to the

conclusion that no prima facie case, balance of convenience is found in favour

of the appellant to issue temporary injunction as desired by them which

ultimately resulted in rejection of his applications. Even though the appellant

has put under challenge the impugned order on various grounds, but looking to

the appreciation by the learned trial Court of the material available on record, it

cannot be said that the view adopted by the learned trial Court is such which

could not have been taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. Order on

temporary injunction should not be rightly interfered with. Appellate Court

should be slow in interfering with the discretionary order of the trial Court. The

Division Bench of this Hon‟ble Court has taken the same view in Prasann

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

Kumar Jain vs. Dr. Basant Baman Rao [2009 (3) MPJR 325 (DB)]. Hon‟ble

the Apex Court in Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Ltd. and Ors. vs. The

Municipal Corporation of Mumbai & Anr. [AIR 2012 SC 1718] has held that

the scope of the appellate Court's power to interfere with an interim order

passed by the Court of first instance is limited one. Relying upon the judgment

in Wander Ltd. vs. Antox India (P) Ltd., 1990 Supp. SCC 727, the Apex Court

has held as under:-

"In such appeals, the appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion."

14. The same view has been taken by 3-Judges Bench of the Apex

Court in Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani, AIR

2010 SC 3221 relying upon the observation in N.K. Dongre vs. Whirlpool

Corpn. (1996) 5 SCC 714 has observed as under:-

"The ratio of the above noted judgments is that once the court of first instance exercises its discretion to grant or refuse to grant relief of temporary injunction and the said exercise of discretion is based upon objective consideration of the material placed before the court and is supported by cogent reasons, the appellate court will be loath to interfere simply because on a de novo

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

consideration of the matter it is possible for the appellate court to form a different opinion on the issues of prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury and equity."

15. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in para 20 of

Mohd. Mehtab Khan vs. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan (2013) 9 SCC 221, which

runs as under:-

"20. In a situation where the learned trial court on a consideration of the respective cases of the parties and the documents laid before it was of the view that the entitlement of the plaintiffs to an order of interim mandatory injunction was in serious doubt, the appellate court could not have interfered with the exercise of discretion by the learned trial Judge unless such exercise was found to be palpably incorrect or untenable. The reasons that weighed with the learned trial Judge, as already noticed, according to us, do not indicate that the view taken is not a possible view. The appellate court, therefore, should not have substituted its views in the matter merely on the ground that in its opinion the facts of the case call for a different conclusion. Such an exercise is not the correct parameter for exercise of jurisdiction while hearing an appeal against a discretionary order. While we must not be understood to have said that the appellate court was wrong in its conclusions what is sought to be emphasised is that as long as the view of the trial court was a possible view the appellate court should not have interfered with the same following the virtually settled principles of law in this regard as laid down by this Court in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd [1990 Supp SCC 727]"

16. In the light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that no

case is made out for interference in the impugned orders. Appeals are devoid of

substance, fail and are hereby dismissed.

17. Since the final disposal of the case may take time and if finally

appellant succeeds in its case, there may be possibility of award of damages in

his favour, therefore, looking to the aforesaid possibility and to avoid

complication in quantifying the amount of compensation, the respondent-M/s.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29084

Rajlaxmi Oils is directed to maintain ledger of accounts of sale of disputed

products and the same will be submitted before the trial Court by the end of

each financial year till the suit is finally disposed of.

18. With the aforesaid observation, these appeals are devoid of any