Vijay Vs. Havells India Limited:July 14, 2025:CM(M)-IPD 29/2025 :2025:DHC:5771:Hon'ble Justice Shri Amit Bansal
Havells India Limited, the respondent/plaintiff, filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 294/2024) against Vijay, the petitioner/defendant, alleging trademark infringement through the unauthorized use of the "HAVVELS" trademark/trade name. On May 27, 2024, the Commercial Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Vijay from using the trademark and appointed Local Commissioners, Mr. Chitra Gupt Dugar and Mr. Kunal Kumar, to inspect and seize infringing goods from Vijay’s premises at House No. 4/1888, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. The court authorized the Commissioners to visit additional premises if infringing goods were found, seize materials like packaging boxes and printing plates, and videograph the proceedings. Raids were conducted on June 1, 2024, and June 17, 2024, including at another property, House No. 4/1877, Rama Block, Gali No. 3, Shahdara, Delhi-110032, where infringing items were seized. The Commissioners filed their reports, and Vijay raised objections, alleging the raids were illegal and exceeded the court’s mandate.
Procedurally, Vijay filed an application under Order XVI Rule 1 and 6 of the CPC to summon Mr. Kunal Kumar, which was dismissed on May 31, 2025. A subsequent application under Order XXVI Rule 10 to examine both Commissioners was dismissed on June 5, 2025, prompting Vijay to file the present petition challenging the dismissal. The Commercial Court had framed an issue on March 7, 2025, questioning the legality of the raids conducted on June 1 and June 17, 2024.
The core dispute centered on Vijay’s claim that the Local Commissioners exceeded their authority by raiding unauthorized premises and that Mr. Kunal Kumar’s participation in the June 17 raid was improper, rendering it illegal. Vijay argued that examining the Commissioners was necessary to prove these violations, while Havells contended the raids were within the court’s mandate and Vijay’s applications were delay tactics.
The High Court reviewed the objections and found them meritless. The May 27, 2024, order explicitly allowed the Commissioners to inspect additional premises where infringing goods were suspected, justifying the raid on House No. 4/1877. The court clarified that Mr. Kunal Kumar accompanied Mr. Dugar at the latter’s request, negating claims of illegality. The court noted that procedural compliance, such as videography, was the plaintiff’s responsibility, not the Commissioners’. Citing Order XXVI Rule 10 of the CPC, the court emphasized that summoning Commissioners is discretionary and requires justification, which Vijay failed to provide, as his objections were already addressed by the Commercial Court on May 31, 2025.
The High Court dismissed Vijay’s petition, finding no grounds to justify examining the Commissioners, and disposed of the pending application.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
