In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court emanating from a plaint instituted by the respondent alleging that the appellant was passing off its goods as those of his own by using marks such as THUKRAL KRANTI, THUKRAL, KS THUKRAL, and KS THUKRAL KRANTI, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla quashed the impugned order and issued directions for practice to be followed by all District Courts.
Various applications, including applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Section 10 of CPC, were filed by the appellant before the Commercial Court to contest the plaint filed by the respondent. These applications were dismissed by the Commercial Court, but the appellant chose not to assail the judgment to that extent.
The appellant submitted that he had restricted his challenge to the impugned judgment on the grounds that while confirming the ex parte ad interim injunction granted to the respondent and dismissing the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, the Commercial Court had favoured the respondent without any findings on goodwill.
The Court found that the Commercial Court not only failed to address the aspect of goodwill but had also failed to record any findings on the respondent’s application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court stated that the impugned judgment was completely unreasoned since the Commercial Court did not refer to aspects such as the balance of convenience or irreparable loss, which are sine qua non before any injunctive order can be passed under Order XXXIX of CPC.
The Court noted that neither party had registered under the Trade Marks Act 1999, and therefore the suit could be considered only on the basis of passing off. It was said that none of the indispensable ingredients required for a claim of passing off to succeed had found any reference in the impugned order. Thus, the impugned order was quashed and set aside, and remitted the applications of the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, as well as that of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC, to the Commercial Court for reconsideration.
The Court directed the counsel for the parties to appear before the Commercial Court on 19-02-2026 and file short notes of their submissions three days in advance of the next date of hearing. The Court held that the parties would not be entitled to seek any adjournment of the fixed date. Further, the Court requested the Commercial Court to reflect the registration numbers in the order in which they were passed in case the said applications were accorded registration numbers by the Registry of the District Court.
Lastly, the Court stated that it was encountering several cases in which orders passed by District Courts on applications filed in pending proceedings did not reflect the application numbers. The Court said that it was informed on the administrative side that all applications were duly numbered at the time of filing. Hence, the Court issued the following practice directions to be followed by all District Courts:
• All applications, at the time of filing, would be duly registered.
• The registration number of the applications would be reflected in the cause list when the matter is placed before the Court.
• Pleadings in the applications would be required to cite the application number.
• Orders passed on the said applications must reflect the application numbers in which the orders are passed.
The Court requested all District Courts to comply with the directions so that reference can be made to applications when they are dealt with at the appellate or revisional stage, and to ensure that judicial orders reflect the appearance of parties or their counsels.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwary, Mr. Amber Jain, Mr. Sarath J Prakash
For Respondent – None
