In a recent judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of DCM Shriram Limited vs. Mr. Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors., the court stressed upon the obligations cast on parties, which seek equitable reliefs such as ex parte and/or ad interim injunctions, to approach the court with sincerity, and vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted previously in the matter in favour of the plaintiff.
It was the plaintiff’s case that the defendants were using SARTAJ 303 and SARTAJ 404 marks, and a gunny bag packaging, for marketing and selling products identical to those of the plaintiff, thereby constituting trade mark infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s SHRIRAM SUPER 303 and SHRIRAM SUPER 304 trade marks and packaging. Based on the plaintiff’s pleadings, the plaintiff was able to obtain an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant.
Pursuant to execution of the local commission proceedings at its premises, the defendants moved the court for setting aside the injunction order. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts since it had misrepresented the date when the cause of action for the subject matter of the suit arose for the first time. The defendants pointed out that, contrary to plaintiff’s assertion that cause of action first arose only in October 2024, it had, in fact, arisen in the year 2018, when the plaintiff complained of the use of the mark SARTAJ 303 for wheat seeds by the defendant’s distributors, vide a letter sent in November 2018. The defendants also challenged the injunction order contending that the numerals ‘303’ and ‘404’ are incapable of distinguishing any goods as they represent varieties of wheat seeds notified by the government.
In its judgment, the court took exception to the plaintiff misrepresenting when the cause of action arose in the matter in the plaint and observed that the letter dated November 2018, which had been brought on record by the defendants for the first time, established that the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in the suit was incorrect. The court emphasized on the duty cast upon the plaintiffs, who seek equitable reliefs such as injunctions, to approach the court with clean hands. In light of the plaintiffs’ above-noted suppression of the 2018 letter, which contained reference to the defendants’ use of the impugned marks and packaging, the court vacated the injunction and directed that the defendants were free to sell the seized products henceforth.
DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED VS. MR AMREEK SINGH CHAWLA & ORS. [CS(COMM) 990/2024 & I.A. Nos. 1208-1209/2025]
Comments