Archidply Industries Limited sued Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited and others for trademark infringement, seeking permanent injunction to restrain defendants from using 'ARCHIT' and variants deceptively similar to plaintiff's 'ARCHID/ARCHIDPLY/ARCHIDLAM' marks. Due to inadvertent error, pages 50-56 of the plaint contained an affidavit supporting electronic records signed by an unrelated third party and attested in Tamil Nadu, while other affidavits were correctly signed by plaintiff's authorized representative Mr. Atul Krishna Pandey and attested in Delhi on the same date. Plaintiff filed application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend by replacing those pages with correct affidavit, arguing the error was clerical, not deliberate, did not alter plaint contents or merits, and was sought promptly before defendants' written statement. Defendants opposed, contending it was impermissible replacement of document rather than amendment, error unexplained, notary and counsel's involvement suspicious, and violated CPC provisions. Court analyzed precedents on amendment scope, finding procedural rules are handmaids to justice, error appeared inadvertent from negligence without affecting case merits or causing prejudice, and allowed amendment to ensure proper adjudication, subject to plaintiff paying Rs. 25,000 costs to Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund within four weeks.
- The power to grant amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC should be exercised liberally if it serves the ends of justice and can be allowed without injustice to the other side, even if due to negligence or inadvertence: Archidply Industries Limited v. Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 693/2024, Para 14 (citing State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518).
- Rules of procedure are handmaids to justice and should not defeat substantive rights; amendments cannot be refused merely on technical grounds or for inadvertent errors if no miscarriage of justice results: Archidply Industries Limited v. Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 693/2024, Para 15 (citing Varun Pahwa v. Renu Chaudhary, (2019) 15 SCC 628).
- Non-compliance with procedural requirements, if curable and not deliberate, should not lead to rejection unless statutorily mandated or causing irremediable prejudice: Archidply Industries Limited v. Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 693/2024, Para 14 (citing Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 75).
- Amendment to correct inadvertent errors like wrong signatures on affidavits is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC if it does not alter the nature of the suit or merits and is necessary for proper adjudication: Archidply Industries Limited v. Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 693/2024, Para 19.
Case Title: Archidply Industries Limited Vs. Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited & Ors. Order date: 24/12/2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 693/2024 Neutral Citation: N/A Name of court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
[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]
