Filing Application seeking condonation within the limitation period does not exempt a party from showing sufficient cause
Introduction: The case involved rectification petitions filed by Godfrey Phillips India Limited against ITC Limited, seeking cancellation of certain trademark registrations. These petitions were previously dismissed for default on 11 November 2024. The present applications were filed to recall the dismissal orders, alleging that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings due to non-receipt of court notices. The respondent, ITC Limited, contested the recall applications, arguing that the petitioner had been duly served and was attempting to mislead the court.
Detailed Factual Background: Godfrey Phillips India Limited had initiated rectification proceedings against ITC Limited’s trademarks before the Intellectual Property Division of the Calcutta High Court. These petitions were part of a broader trademark dispute between the two parties, which also involved civil suits before the Bombay High Court and opposition proceedings before the Trademark Registry. The rectification petitions were dismissed for default on 11 November 2024 after the petitioner failed to appear. The petitioner later claimed that it only discovered the dismissal during a review of another ongoing case before the Delhi High Court. It contended that it never received court notices regarding the listing of the rectification petitions and sought recall of the dismissal orders.
ITC Limited opposed the recall applications, arguing that: 1. The petitioner had full knowledge of the pending proceedings. 2. The petitioner was duly served on 11 May 2023. 3. The matter had appeared multiple times in the daily cause list, proving that the petitioner had ample notice.
Detailed Proceeding:The rectification petitions were first listed on 10 April 2023, when the court directed the issuance of notices to both parties. The court registry confirmed that notices were served on 11 May 2023. The cases were subsequently listed multiple times in the daily cause list on:6 April 2023,10 April 2023,4 August 2023,1 September 2023,6 October 2023,1 December 2023,5 January 2024,2 February 2024,1 March 2024.Despite this, the petitioner failed to appear, leading to dismissal for default on 11 November 2024.
The petitioner filed recall applications in early 2025, arguing that:It had no knowledge of the proceedings.It never received court notices.The recall applications were filed within the limitation period, so no further justification was required.
Issues Involved in the Case:1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with court notices.2. Whether the dismissal for default should be recalled.3. Whether the petitioner’s explanation of lack of knowledge was credible.4. Whether the recall application could be allowed without showing sufficient cause.
Petitioner (Godfrey Phillips India Limited) submitted that:It only became aware of the dismissal while reviewing files for another case before the Delhi High Court.No notice of the April 2023 listing was received from either its advocates or the court registry.Several trademark-related disputes were pending between the parties, including civil suits before the Bombay High Court and opposition proceedings before the Trademark Registry.Since the recall applications were filed within the limitation period, the court should automatically grant relief without requiring any further justification.
Respondent (ITC Limited) submitted that:The petitioner was duly served on 11 May 2023, as per certified records from the court registry.The case had been listed multiple times in the daily cause list, proving that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings.The recall applications contained false statements and attempted to mislead the court.Granting the recall applications would reward negligence and dishonesty.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties:The court referred to legal principles on recalling orders and dismissal for default, emphasizing that:An application for recall must be carefully drafted and should not assume automatic approval.Sufficient cause must be shown for seeking recall, even if the application is filed within the limitation period.False or misleading explanations disentitle the applicant from relief.The court compared the petitioner’s claims against the official records, which confirmed that:Notices were duly served on 11 May 2023.The matter was listed multiple times.The petitioner’s claim of non-receipt of notices was false.The court rejected the petitioner’s argument that no justification was required for recall and held that:Filing Application seeking condonation within the limitation period does not exempt a party from showing sufficient cause.The court records clearly showed that the petitioner was served and had ample notice of the proceedings.The petitioner knowingly made false statements to mislead the court.The petitioner, being a large multinational company, had a higher duty of care in conducting litigation.Allowing the recall applications would set a bad precedent by rewarding negligence and dishonesty.
Final Decision:The court dismissed all three recall applications and refused to reinstate the rectification petitions. No costs were imposed.
Law Settled in This Case:A recall application must demonstrate sufficient cause; mere filing within the limitation period is not enough.Falsely claiming non-receipt of notices disentitles a party from relief.Official court records will prevail over unsubstantiated claims by litigants.Multinational companies have a greater duty of care in conducting litigation and cannot evade procedural requirements.Repeated non-appearance, despite multiple listings, is sufficient ground for dismissal for default.Granting recall in such cases would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging negligence in legal proceedings.
Case Title: Godfrey Phillips India Limited Vs ITC Limited and Anr
Date of Order: 21 February 2025
Case No.: IPDATM/120/2023
Name of Court: High Court of Calcutta
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
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
