Facts:This case involves a trademark dispute that traces back to the family business of Panchhi Petha Store, founded in 1952 in Agra by late Panchhi Lal. Over time, the business and the trademark rights were distributed between his two sons, Kanhaiya Lal and Subhash Chander, and their respective descendants. The original partnership registered the trademark "PANCHHI KA PETHA AUR DALMOTH" in 1971. After Panchhi Lal’s passing, a family settlement was executed in 1982 stipulating rights to use the trademark and maintaining a one-kilometer distance between respective shops operating under the "PANCHHI" name. As years passed, disputes arose when the petitioners learned that the respondent, Subhash Chandbr, had secured multiple trademark registrations in different classes without the knowledge or inclusion of the petitioners. This led to the filing of rectification petitions challenging the registrations and asserting independent rights over the "PANCHHI" trademark, as stipulated in the family settlement.
Procedural Details: Rectification petitions were originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and subsequently transferred to the Delhi High Court after the IPAB was abolished. During the course of proceedings, two key petitioners, Kanhaiya Lal and Anil Kumar, passed away. Applications were filed to bring their legal heirs on record and to condone the delay in such filings—delays that resulted from bereavement, gathering legal documentation, and ongoing mediation. Respondents objected, arguing that the applications were filed well beyond prescribed limits and that the cause of action had abated against the deceased petitioners. Relying on Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioners pleaded that the delay was not deliberate but caused by unforeseen circumstances, and that the proceedings should continue on merits by impleading the legal heirs.
Dispute: The dispute centered on control and use of the "PANCHHI" trademark arising from the family settlement, as well as the right of descendants to carry out business under the established brand name. The petitioners contended their rights were being undermined by the respondent’s unilateral trademark registrations and sought to rectify the Trademark Register to restore a fair balance as agreed upon in the family settlement. The respondent resisted, citing technical delays and lack of proper cause for condonation, and relied on prior legal precedents suggesting abatement and loss of legal standing due to late filing.
Detailed Reasoning: The Court examined the facts carefully, including the terms of the family settlement that gave rise to independent trademark rights for both families and their male descendants. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in Mithailal Dalsanagar Singh v. Annabai Devram Kini (2003 10 SCC 691), which established that applications to bring legal heirs on record must be liberally construed, and that technicalities should not override substantive justice. The Court found that bereavement, mediation attempts, and administrative complexities following the death of petitioners justified condoning the delay. The family settlement agreement, especially Clause 4, was strongly relied upon, affirming the rights of descendants to carry out business under the "PANCHHI" brand and to take legal action collectively to protect their interests.
The Court also dismissed respondent’s reliance on DSGMC v. Jagmohan Singh (2021 SCC OnLine Del 5423) and Shivamma dead by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969), finding those cases inapplicable to the particular family arrangement and independent rights at stake. The judge underscored that technical defaults should not bar parties from having their disputes decided on merits, especially where equity and long-standing business interests are involved.
Decision: The Court allowed the applications for impleadment of legal heirs, condoned the delay, and restored the abated petitions. The legal heirs—Mohit Goyal, Ankit Goyal, and Gaurav Goyal—were impleaded with direction for the petitioners to file amended memoranda within two weeks and pay costs of Rs. 25,000 per case to the respondent. By adopting a justice-oriented approach rather than dismissing on procedural grounds, the Court reinforced the principle that matters of substantial interest—like rights under a family settlement and registered trademark—should be adjudicated on merits and not buried due to technical delays.
Case Title: Kanhiaya Lal and Others Vs. Subhash Chandbr and Another
Order Date: 9th October 2025
Case Number: C.O. COMM.IPD-TM 339/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8983
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: 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
