Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh

In a family property dispute from Punjab, Manohar Singh filed a suit claiming he was the real owner of certain agricultural land bought in his parents’ names as a benami transaction, while his relatives (Baldev Singh and others) denied this and asserted their own ownership and possession in their written statement. During the trial, the defendants sought to amend their written statement to add that after the parents’ death the land had been mutated jointly in equal shares among all family members and that the suit was barred by limitation. Both the trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the amendment, holding it introduced inconsistent pleas and withdrew admissions. The Supreme Court overturned those orders, ruling that amendments to a written statement must be allowed liberally unless they cause serious injustice or irreparable harm to the other side. Defendants can raise alternative or even inconsistent defences, unlike plaintiffs who cannot change their core claim, and mere delay is not a ground for refusal when no prejudice is shown. The proposed changes were simply an elaboration of the existing defence, the trial had not yet begun, and no admissions were being withdrawn. The Supreme Court allowed the amendment, directed the defendants to file it within one month, and ordered the trial court to decide the suit within one year.

Title: Baldev Singh and Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another, Order date: August 3, 2006, Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3362 of 2006, Neutral Citation: (2006) 6 SCC 498, Name of court and Judge: Supreme Court of India, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

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

AstraZeneca AB Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

AstraZeneca, the Swedish company behind the diabetes drug Dapagliflozin (sold as Forxiga), sued eight Indian generic drug makers — Intas, Alkem, Zydus, Eris, USV, Torrent, MSN, Micro Labs and Ajanta — for selling cheaper versions of the same medicine. AstraZeneca claimed the generics infringed two Indian patents: an earlier broad “genus” patent (IN 147, which covered a large family of similar compounds and expired in October 2020) and a later “species” patent (IN 625) that specifically protected Dapagliflozin until 2023. The generic companies argued that the specific patent was invalid because Dapagliflozin was already covered and known from the first patent, making the second one obvious and not truly new. Two single judges, after hearing the cases separately, refused to stop the generics from selling their versions while the trials continued, saying the companies had raised serious doubts about the later patent’s validity. AstraZeneca appealed all nine cases together to the division bench. The Delhi High Court examined the patents, the companies’ own earlier statements in India and the US, and the scientific details. It found that AstraZeneca itself had treated Dapagliflozin as covered by the first patent, creating a credible challenge to the second patent on grounds of prior disclosure, obviousness and incomplete information given to the Indian Patent Office. The judges also noted that generics offered the medicine at much lower prices and that stopping them would harm patients more than it would help AstraZeneca. The court dismissed all the appeals on 20 July 2021, allowing the generic companies to continue making and selling Dapagliflozin while the main trials go on.

AstraZeneca AB Vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.:20.07.2021:FAO(OS)(COMM) 139/2020: Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Justice Amit Bansal.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

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

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited

Two steel companies that once shared management under the same family groups ended up in a bitter trademark battle over similar brand names for TMT steel bars. Ashiana Ispat claimed it had full rights to sell products under the name “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” because of a 2002 agreement that split the brands between the two firms, allowing each to own separate marks while they jointly built the “KAMDHENU” reputation. Kamdhenu Limited argued that later 2021 licensing deals replaced the old arrangement, that it owned the registered “KAMDHENU”, “KAMDHENU GOLD” and “KAMDHENU GOLD TMT” marks, and that Ashiana’s use of the similar name was causing confusion and passing off its products as Kamdhenu’s.

The Delhi High Court examined the agreements, sales records, advertisements and evidence of use. It found that the 2021 deal had novated the earlier 2002 split, that Ashiana had not built independent goodwill in “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” on its own, and that any earlier use was only as a licensed user. Kamdhenu proved its prior rights, substantial reputation and the strong likelihood that ordinary buyers would be confused by the similar names on identical steel products.

The court granted an interim injunction stopping Ashiana and its associates from manufacturing, selling or promoting goods under “AL KAMDHENU GOLD” or any deceptively similar mark, while dismissing Ashiana’s request for a similar order against Kamdhenu. The main suits will now proceed to full trial.

Ashiana Ispat Limited Vs Kamdhenu Limited : 10.04.2026:CS(COMM) 130/2025:2025:DHC:3002, Hon'ble Justice Shri Justice Tejas Karia.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

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

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw  #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited Vs. Exide Industries Limited

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited went to the Calcutta High Court after a single judge blocked them from selling their new Elito car batteries packed in bright red boxes that closely matched the red trade dress long used by rival Exide Industries Limited.

Exide argued that its red packaging, along with the “EL” name and shattered “O” design, had become a well-known sign of its batteries after decades of use, and that Amara Raja’s similar look was confusing buyers and amounting to copying. Amara Raja replied that no company can own a plain colour like red, that buyers choose batteries by brand name and vehicle fit rather than colour, and that their design had enough differences.

The Division Bench examined the evidence, including Amara Raja’s earlier social-media campaign that promoted green as its own signature colour while criticising red, and found that red had become strongly linked to Exide in the market.

The judges noted that the two battery boxes looked deceptively alike when placed side by side on shop shelves and that ordinary buyers could easily be misled. They upheld the injunction granted by the single judge, ruled that the balance of convenience favoured protecting Exide’s established identity, and dismissed Amara Raja’s appeal, keeping the restriction on the similar red packaging in place.

Title: Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited Vs. Exide Industries Limited: April 02, 2026:TEMPA PO-IPD/7/2025:,CalHC, Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

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

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Vs Prof. Kaushal K. Verma

In a long-running dispute at AIIMS, several senior doctors who had earned promotion to professor through an internal assessment scheme felt they deserved higher seniority than doctors hired directly into the same posts from outside. The Central Administrative Tribunal ruled against them, prompting the promoted professors to approach the Delhi High Court. During an earlier hearing the court had refused to stay the tribunal’s order and had given AIIMS time till the end of 2014 to implement it. Believing that one of the judges had already made up his mind against them, two groups of petitioners asked the bench, especially Justice S Ravindra Bhat, to step aside and not hear the case further.

The High Court rejected the request for recusal. It explained that a judge’s preliminary view given while deciding an interim application does not amount to final bias or prejudging the whole dispute, and that every litigant must expect such views during early hearings. The court added that judges are trained to keep an open mind, the second judge on the bench had an equal say, and not all petitioners even supported the recusal plea. Finding the apprehension unreasonable, the bench ruled it would go ahead and hear the main petitions on merits as scheduled.

Title: ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs PROF. KAUSHAL K. VERMA AND ORS and connected writ petitions, Order date: 05.05.2015, Case Number: W.P.(C) 4103/2014, W.P.(C) 4228/2014, W.P.(C) 4245/2014 & W.P.(C) 7166/2014, Neutral Citation: 2015:DHC:4005-DB, Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Judge: Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice R.K. Gauba.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

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