Sabu Trade Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumar Sabu

Introduction:  The consolidated judgment in Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Raj Kumar Sabu & Anr (CS(COMM) 97/2020) and the connected suit Raj Kumar Sabu v. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors (CS(COMM) 761/2016) addresses a deeply entrenched family and business conflict over the proprietorship, adoption, and use of the trademark ‘SACHAMOTI’ in relation to sabudana (sago) and allied edible products. 

This dispute pits Sabu Trade Private Limited (STPL), a family-owned company, against Raj Kumar Sabu, a former director and family member, amid allegations of surreptitious registration, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and fabrication of documents. 

The core issue revolves around whether the mark belongs to the company through prior use and goodwill or to Raj Kumar Sabu through personal registration and an alleged assignment via an affidavit from their late mother. 

The judgment, delivered on 31 January 2026, resolves multiple interlocutory applications concerning amendment of pleadings, interrogatories, additional documents, and a criminal miscellaneous application, emphasizing procedural fairness, the need to adjudicate real controversies, and the threshold for allowing discovery in commercial trademark disputes.

Factual Background: The origins trace back to the family business run under the name M/s Sabu Traders, which achieved success in trading sabudana and related products. In 1993, the family incorporated M/s Sabu Export Salem Pvt Ltd, later renamed Sabu Trade Private Limited (STPL) in 2006. The initial directors included Kaushalya Devi Sabu, Gopal Sabu, Shivnarayan Sabu, and Raj Kumar Sabu. STPL claims to be the true proprietor and prior user of the ‘SACHAMOTI’ mark, asserting that Raj Kumar Sabu, while serving as a director and distributor, surreptitiously obtained trademark registrations in his personal name despite his association with the company. STPL alleges that Raj Kumar Sabu misused his position to register the mark personally, thereby depriving the company of its goodwill built over years of use.

Conversely, Raj Kumar Sabu maintains that the ‘SACHAMOTI’ mark is registered in his favor in Class 30 under application No. 1169859. He relies on an affidavit dated 08.06.2016 purportedly executed by his late mother, Smt. Chandrakanta Sabu, which allegedly assigned the rights, title, and interest in the mark to him in 1997. This affidavit forms the cornerstone of his claim to exclusive ownership. The dispute escalated into litigation with STPL filing a suit originally in the District Court, Salem (later transferred to Delhi High Court), seeking to restrain Raj Kumar Sabu and his entity from using the mark, while Raj Kumar Sabu filed a connected suit seeking a permanent injunction against STPL and its directors from using ‘SACHAMOTI’.

Procedural Background: The original suit (OS No. 148 of 2016) filed by STPL in Salem was transferred to the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.07.2019 in Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 1676 of 2017, 1328 of 2018, and Civil Appeal Nos. 5644-5645 of 2019. The connected suit was instituted directly in the Delhi High Court. Over time, multiple applications arose due to evolving pleadings and evidentiary needs. STPL filed I.A. No. 10994/2020 seeking amendment of its plaint to update sales and advertisement figures, insert paragraphs alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and fabrication of the affidavit attributed to Chandrakanta Sabu, amend valuation paragraphs, and add prayers to declare the affidavit null and void while directing transfer of the mark to STPL. In the connected suit, defendants (STPL side) sought amendment of their written statement via I.A. No. 11028/2020 to update sales and advertisement averments.

STPL also filed I.A. No. 8922/2020 under Order XI Rule 2 CPC for permission to administer interrogatories highlighting alleged inconsistencies in Raj Kumar Sabu’s pleadings, trademark affidavits, and positions in related proceedings. Additional documents were sought, with objections raised on relevance and specific items. 

A criminal miscellaneous application (CrI.M.A. No. 12366/2020) in the connected suit was also considered, likely concerning allegations of fabrication or contempt. 

Reasoning and Decision of Court: The court began by identifying the overlapping factual matrix and the need for a common judgment to resolve procedural bottlenecks efficiently. On amendment applications, it noted that STPL sought to introduce allegations of fraud, fabrication of the affidavit, and breach of fiduciary duty, supported by claims of inconsistencies and prima facie falsehood in documents. 

The court found a prima facie case of falsehood in the affidavit and related materials, reasoning that such amendments were necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties, especially since the suit was at an early stage with no trial commencement. 

It emphasized that amendments should be liberally allowed if they do not alter the fundamental character of the suit or cause irreparable prejudice, and here the proposed changes clarified ownership issues central to the dispute.  The amendments to sales/advertisement figures were rejected.

Regarding interrogatories, the court scrutinized whether they were in prescribed format and amounted to impermissible fishing or cross-examination. 

It held that the interrogatories were relevant to probe inconsistencies in Raj Kumar Sabu’s stands across proceedings, including trademark affidavits, and were not exploratory but targeted at material facts. Permission was granted under the Commercial Courts Act framework, underscoring the need for full discovery in commercial disputes involving fraud allegations. 

On additional documents, the court overruled blanket objections to relevance, allowing those directly connected to use, goodwill, or the affidavit’s authenticity, while rejecting others lacking nexus. Specific objections were addressed individually, with the court balancing probative value against prejudice. 

Point of Law Settled in the Case :This judgment reinforces liberal principles for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in commercial IP disputes. It clarifies that interrogatories in commercial suits (post-CC Act) can be allowed if targeted at inconsistencies and material facts rather than fishing expeditions.In family/business trademark conflicts involving fiduciary duties, courts prioritize procedural tools to prevent injustice from suppressed facts.

Case Title: Sabu Trade Private Limited Vs. Raj Kumar Sabu & Anr (and Connected Suit: Raj Kumar Sabu v. Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors)  

Date of Order: 31.01.2026  

Case Number: CS(COMM) 97/2020 (and Connected CS(COMM) 761/2016)  

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:796  

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi  

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.  

**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

**Suggested Titles for this Article**  

1. Family Feud Over ‘SACHAMOTI’ Mark: Delhi High Court Allows Amendments and Interrogatories in Trademark Ownership Battle  

2. Procedural Breakthrough in Sabu Trade v. Raj Kumar Sabu: Key Rulings on Fraud Allegations and Discovery in IP Disputes  

3. Delhi High Court Enables Full Adjudication in ‘SACHAMOTI’ Trademark Dispute Through Liberal Procedural Reliefs  

**Suitable Tags**  

trademark ownership, SACHAMOTI, sabudana, passing off, infringement, family business dispute, amendment of pleadings, interrogatories, additional documents, fraud in affidavit, fiduciary duty, Delhi High Court, commercial courts act, prior use, goodwill

**Headnote**  

In Sabu Trade Private Limited v. Raj Kumar Sabu & Connected Suit, the Delhi High Court allowed amendments to pleadings introducing fraud and fabrication allegations regarding an assignment affidavit, permitted targeted interrogatories to address inconsistencies, and admitted relevant additional documents in a family dispute over the ‘SACHAMOTI’ trademark for sabudana products. The ruling highlights liberal amendment principles, the scope of discovery in commercial IP cases, and the need to resolve real controversies involving prima facie falsehoods, ensuring fair adjudication of proprietorship claims.

=====

The case arises from a long-standing family dispute over the trademark "SACHAMOTI" (and associated label/copyright) used for sabudana (sago) and related products, involving brothers Rajkumar Sabu (RKS) and Gopal Sabu, along with family entities like Sabu Trade Pvt Ltd (STPL) and others. 

The dispute originated from joint family business origins, with RKS claiming assignment from late mother Chandrakanta Sabu and obtaining registration, while STPL and others asserted prior family use and challenged validity. Two connected suits were filed: CS(COMM) 761/2016 by RKS against Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors (including STPL/Gopal) for infringement/passing off, and CS(COMM) 97/2020 by STPL against RKS & Anr seeking similar reliefs. 

Multiple interim applications arose including for amendment of pleadings, interrogatories, additional documents, and a criminal miscellaneous application. 

The court dealt with objections to amendments as substantive/prejudicial, interrogatories as fishing/cross-examination, relevance of additional documents, and prima facie falsehood in claims. 

After analyzing submissions, evidence of registrations, user claims, inconsistencies, and procedural aspects, the court granted interim injunction in favor of RKS restraining defendants from using the mark/label in CS 761/2016, rejected STPL's injunction application in CS 97/2020, allowed certain amendments/interrogatories/documents with conditions where relevant and non-prejudicial, dismissed others as irrelevant/fishing, and rejected the criminal miscellaneous application finding no prima facie falsehood warranting action, directing suits to proceed on merits with consolidated trial considerations.

Law Point Settled: Amendments to pleadings in trademark/family disputes are permissible if they do not introduce entirely new causes or cause irreparable prejudice, but substantive changes altering core claims may be disallowed at advanced stages; 

Interrogatories under Order XI CPC must be relevant, in prescribed format, and not amount to fishing enquiry or cross-examination.

Additional documents can be permitted under Order VII Rule 14/ Order VIII Rule 1A CPC if good cause shown for late filing and relevance to issues, but irrelevant or inadmissible documents.

In family trademark disputes involving registration vs prior use claims, registered proprietor enjoys prima facie statutory protection under Sections 28 & 31 Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Case Title: Sabu Trade Pvt Ltd Vs Raj Kumar Sabu:31.01.2026: (CS(COMM) 97/2020 :2026:DHC:786: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

=====