SRK Max Hospital Vs. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. | Date of Order: 10 July 2025 | Case No.: RFA(COMM) 339/2025 | Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5556-DB | Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul
The dispute arose when Max Healthcare Institute Ltd., owner of the well-known “MAX” trademarks used in healthcare services, filed CS (Comm) 475/2024 against SRK Max Hospital and others. The suit alleged infringement and sought to restrain the defendants from using the name “SRK MAX HOSPITAL” and the domain https://srkmaxhospitals.com/, claiming deceptive similarity to its registered “MAX” family of marks. On 14 October 2024, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks. Despite the injunction, the plaintiff produced evidence including website printouts, social media posts, and signboards showing continued use of the mark by the defendants.
Procedurally, the defendants failed to file their written statement within the stipulated time. The Commercial Court imposed costs of ₹50,000/- as a condition to take the written statement and related applications on record, which were not paid, resulting in the suit being decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on 1 May 2025. Additionally, the Court found the defendants guilty of willful disobedience of the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and directed them to pay ₹5 lakhs as punitive damages, failing which they would face civil imprisonment.
The core dispute centered on whether SRK Max Hospital’s use of “MAX” as part of its branding infringed Max Healthcare’s established trademarks and whether the defendants were in contempt for not complying with the interim injunction. The defendants argued they had eventually removed the infringing material, but evidence showed persistent usage even after multiple warnings.
High Court observed that while the defendants claimed steps were taken to remove the mark, these were delayed and only done after the contempt application was filed. The Court upheld the Commercial Court’s finding of contempt and the award of ₹5 lakhs as damages. Regarding the decree of injunction under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, the High Court noted the defendants’ failure to comply with procedural costs orders and dismissed their claim that they had filed within time. However, to ensure substantial justice, the Court granted the defendants a final opportunity to argue their application for condonation of delay—conditional upon paying ₹5 lakhs damages and ₹50,000/- costs within two weeks.
Ultimately, the High Court upheld the finding of contempt and the penalty, set aside the decree of injunction subject to the defendants complying with costs directions, and remanded the matter to the Commercial Court to hear the application for condonation of delay on merits. Both parties were directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 5 August 2025 without seeking adjournment.
