Bikanervala & Anr. Vs. Sh. Satya Narayan

Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case, Factual Background

This case involves a petition filed before the High Court of Delhi challenging an order passed by the Trial Court. The core issue revolves around the Trial Court's refusal to allow the Petitioners, Bikanervala & Anr., to submit electronic evidence (videos contained in a pen drive) in a contempt petition they filed against the Respondents, Sh. Satya Narayan & Ors. The videos allegedly show the Respondents violating an interim injunction by using a distinctive artistic label or "JHALAR device" similar to that of the Petitioners' 'BIKANERVALA' trademark. The High Court ultimately upheld the Trial Court's discretionary decision, finding no reason to interfere with the rejection of the application to take the videos on record, especially since the videos were not relied upon for the main trademark infringement suit but only for the separate contempt proceedings.

Procedural Detail

The Petitioners had filed a main suit, CS (COMM) No. 2232/2019, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Respondents from using the trademark and artwork 'BIKANER CORNERWALA,' which they claimed was identical or deceptively similar to their 'BIKANERVALA' mark. An interim injunction was initially granted on February 11, 2020, but a subsequent order on February 13, 2020, permitted the Respondents to use the words "Bikaner Cornerwala" or "Bikaner Corner Wala" while the injunction continued to operate specifically on the Petitioners' distinctive artistic label, the "JHALAR device". The injunction was later given full effect on May 9, 2023, restraining the use of 'BIKANER CORNERWALA' or 'BIKANER CORNER WALA' entirely.

Following this, the Petitioners conducted investigations in March and April 2023, where they shot videos allegedly revealing the Respondents' use of the "JHALAR device" in violation of the 2020 injunctions. The Petitioners then filed Contempt Petition No. 8/2023 against the Respondents, mentioning a Google Drive link to these videos.

The Petitioners filed an application on March 4, 2025, under Order XI Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to place a pen drive containing the video recordings on record. This first application was dismissed by the Trial Court on July 24, 2025, because the supporting affidavit was given by the Petitioners' counsel, not a party to the proceeding, as required by Order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Petitioners filed a fresh application on August 25, 2025, for the same purpose, this time supported by an affidavit from their authorised representative. This second application was also dismissed by the Trial Court on October 31, 2025 (the Impugned Order).

The present petition, CM(M)-IPD 45/2025, was filed by the Petitioners, Bikanervala & Anr., to challenge the Trial Court's dismissal order dated October 31, 2025. The Petitioners argued that the Trial Court had dismissed the application based on the erroneous fact that the videos were downloaded from the Google Drive on August 20, 2025, when the correct fact was that they were downloaded to a local drive on April 13, 2023, and only copied to the pen drive on August 20, 2025. They asserted that the videos were highly relevant for proving the Respondents' "contumacious conduct" in the contempt matter, even if they weren't relevant for the merits of the trademark infringement suit.

Core Dispute

The central dispute in the High Court was whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the Petitioners' application, filed under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to submit a pen drive containing video evidence in the contempt petition.

The Trial Court's reasoning in the Impugned Order, which the Petitioners challenged, rested on several observations:

1. The original video recordings were always in the possession or control of the Petitioners, yet they claimed they were downloaded from a Google Drive link.

2. The investigator, Anil Kumar, who shot the videos, was not examined as a witness.

3. The Google Drive link (URL) provided by the Petitioners in their previous application was non-functional and nothing was stored on the cloud as of the date of an earlier order (July 24, 2025) and even at the time of the hearing on the fresh application (October 10, 2025).

4. The Petitioners' stands in the affidavit and application were contradictory regarding the date of downloading the videos, stating they were downloaded on August 20, 2025, in the pen drive, but also asserting they were downloaded on April 13, 2023.

5. Given the link was empty earlier, it was "highly improbable" to download the videos to the pen drive on August 20, 2025, as claimed.

6. The Trial Court could not believe the videos were downloaded in the pen drive by the Petitioners' authorised representative as asserted.

Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning

The High Court of Delhi, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, heard the arguments and reviewed the Impugned Order dated October 31, 2025.

The Court's primary focus was on the scope of its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with a decision of the Trial Court. The High Court ruled that the Trial Court's order, which rejected the application under Order XI Rule 6 CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was a matter within the Trial Court's jurisdiction. The Court found no reason to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to overturn the Trial Court's discretion.

The High Court specifically addressed the relevance of the evidence. It noted that the videos were not relevant to the merits of the main trademark infringement suit. The Petitioners had already concluded their evidence in the suit and had chosen not to rely upon these videos for the issues concerning the merits of the main claim. The Petitioners were relying on these videos solely for the adjudication of the contempt petition.

The High Court provided a crucial legal distinction regarding contempt proceedings. The Court stated that the issue of whether the Respondents committed contempt is a matter "between the Court and the defendant". This principle suggests that contempt proceedings are primarily for the vindication of the court's dignity and authority, not merely an adversarial proceeding between the parties. Therefore, the issue of contempt will be decided by the Trial Court based on the evidence already filed with the contempt petition.

Given these facts—that the evidence was not critical to the main suit, that the Petitioners had already concluded their evidence, and that the Trial Court had appreciated the facts and exercised its discretion based on the contradictory stands and non-functional evidence link—the High Court found no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in dismissing the application.

(The order does not include citations of any external legal judgments referred to or discussed for reasoning beyond the facts and procedural history of the case itself ).

Decision

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the present petition, CM(M)-IPD 45/2025. Consequently, all pending applications were also disposed of. The Trial Court's decision to not permit the electronic evidence (pen drive with videos) to be taken on record in the contempt petition stands affirmed.

Concluding Note

The decision of the High Court of Delhi underscores the principle of judicial non-interference with the discretionary orders of a subordinate court, particularly when the subordinate court has considered the facts presented to it. The key takeaway for any litigant is the importance of timely and consistent presentation of evidence, especially in the context of commercial litigation governed by specific procedural rules like Order XI Rule 6 of the Commercial Courts Act. The Trial Court's refusal, upheld by the High Court, was heavily influenced by the Petitioners' conflicting statements regarding the download date of the electronic evidence and the non-functional status of the original evidence link. Furthermore, the Court reiterated the distinct nature of contempt proceedings, which are fundamentally matters between the court and the alleged contemnor, allowing the Trial Court to decide the issue based on the evidence already before it, without the High Court needing to exercise its extraordinary power to compel the acceptance of belated or questionable evidence. This highlights the strict standards applied to the introduction of electronic evidence, requiring clear chain of custody and verifiable authenticity.

---

Case Title: Bikanervala & Anr. Vs. Sh. Satya Narayan & Ors. Order Date: November 20, 2025 Case Number: CM(M)-IPD 45/2025 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:Citation No [This would be reflected at top of any page of Order in this format Year:DHC:Citation No] Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and 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 the Legal Analytical Article:

1. The Discreet Hand of Justice: High Court Refuses to Interfere with Trial Court's Discretion on Electronic Evidence in Contempt Proceedings

2. Contempt, Commercial Courts, and CPC: An Analysis of Timeliness and Authenticity in Filing Electronic Evidence

3. Order XI Rule 6, CPC, and the Burden of Proof: Why Bikanervala's Pen Drive Was Dismissed by the Trial Court

4. The Contradictory Evidence Conundrum: A Study in Admissibility of Electronic Records for Contempt in Trademark Disputes

5. Beyond the Main Suit: Examining the High Court's Stance on Introducing Evidence Solely for Contempt Adjudication

=====

Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court's Discretion to Reject Late Electronic Evidence in Trademark Contempt Plea

New Delhi: In a recent order dated November 20, 2025, the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dismissed a petition filed by Bikanervala & Anr. in the case of Bikanervala & Anr. v. Sh. Satya Narayan & Ors. (Case No. CM(M)-IPD 45/2025). The Court refused to interfere with a Trial Court's decision that declined to take on record a pen drive containing video evidence regarding an alleged trademark violation.

The dispute arose from a suit filed by the petitioners seeking to restrain the respondents from using the mark 'BIKANER CORNERWALA', claiming it infringed their well-known 'BIKANERVALA' trademark. While an interim injunction was in place restraining the use of the petitioners' distinctive "JHALAR device," the petitioners alleged that the respondents continued to violate this order. To prove this "contumacious conduct," the petitioners sought to introduce video recordings shot by investigators in 2023 into the ongoing contempt proceedings via a pen drive application under Order XI Rule 6 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Trial Court dismissed the application, noting significant discrepancies in the petitioners' claims regarding the electronic evidence. Specifically, the Trial Court observed that the Google Drive link originally cited by the petitioners was found to be empty on multiple occasions, making the claim that videos were downloaded from it on a specific later date "highly improbable".

Upholding the lower court's decision, Justice Arora observed that the videos were not relevant to the merits of the main suit, where evidence had already concluded. Regarding the contempt petition, the High Court ruled that the issue of contempt is primarily a matter between the Court and the alleged contemnor. Finding no error in how the Trial Court exercised its jurisdiction to reject the contradictory evidence, the High Court dismissed the petition.

---

Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi

=====