Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla issued detailed practice directions to all district courts in the national capital, directing that every judicial order must record the application registration numbers being decided and must also note the appearance or non-appearance of parties or their counsel, after the Bench found that orders on interlocutory and other pending applications frequently omitted these particulars. In the same matter, the Court set aside a district commercial court order that had continued an ex parte interim injunction in a passing-off dispute over “Thukral”-formative marks and remitted the plaintiff’s interim-injunction application and the defendant’s vacate application for fresh consideration, with directions for an expedited hearing.

During the hearing of an appeal arising from a commercial passing-off suit, the High Court of Delhi recorded a “parting note” about an administrative issue it said it was encountering across matters: orders of district courts on interlocutory and other pending applications often did not mention the application numbers, despite information received on the administrative side that applications are numbered when filed. The judgment also set out practice directions focused on application registration, reflecting those numbers in cause lists and pleadings, and ensuring that orders indicate the application numbers and record whether parties or counsel appeared.

Also Read: Arrest Is An Exception, Notice Mandatory Under Section 35(3) BNSS In Offences Punishable Up To Seven Years: Supreme Court

In the underlying dispute, the plaintiff sued the defendant alleging passing off by use of the marks “THUKRAL KRANTI”, “THUKRAL”, “KS THUKRAL” and “KS THUKRAL KRANTI”, along with claims for delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts. Before the Commercial Court, the defendant filed applications including under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 10 CPC. The appeal challenge was confined to the order that confirmed an ex parte ad interim injunction and rejected an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, where the defendant relied on alleged bona fide use since 2003 and asserted non-compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC; the plaintiff relied on asserted use since 1983 and filed an affidavit stating that compliance was made when a Local Commissioner executed the commission on 6 March 2023.

The Court recorded that “We are coming across several cases in which orders passed by the learned District Courts on interlocutory applications and other applications filed in pending proceedings do not reflect the application numbers.” It noted, “We were also informed on the administrative side that all applications are duly numbered at the time of filing.”

The Bench stated, “We do not see why the procedure adopted in this Court is not prevalent in the learned District Courts.” It then recorded, “We deem it appropriate to issue the following practice directions, to be followed by all District Courts:” and further stated, “We request all the learned District Courts to ensure compliance with these directions so that it facilitates reference to the applications when they are dealt with at the appellate or revisional stage.” It also stated, “We also request the learned District Courts to ensure that judicial orders passed by them reflect the appearance of parties or learned counsel or, in case no one appears, notes to that effect.”

On the merits of the impugned order, the Court observed, “we find that the learned Commercial Court has not just failed to address the aspect of goodwill but has also failed to record any findings on the merits of the respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.” It recorded, “There is no finding on merits whatsoever.” The Bench further stated, “To our mind, the impugned judgment is completely unreasoned.” It noted, “The learned Commercial Court has not adverted to any of the aspects either to prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss, which are sine-qua-non before any injunctive order can be passed under Order XXXIX of the CPC.”

The Court also recorded, “Neither of the parties have registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as a result of which the suit could only be considered on passing off.” It stated, “The three indispensable ingredients for a claim of passing off to succeed are the existence of goodwill on the part of the plaintiff, prior to adoption of the mark by the defendant, misrepresentation by the plaintiff and consequent damages to the defendant.” It concluded, “None of these aspects find any reference in the impugned order of the learned Commercial Court.”

The Court ordered, “As a result, we have no option but to quash and set aside the impugned order of the learned Commercial Court. We accordingly do so. The applications of the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC stand remitted to the learned Commercial Court for consideration afresh. Needless to say, the learned Commercial Court would decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation contained in the impugned order dated 20 October 2023.”

“Learned counsel for the parties to appear before the learned Commercial Court on 19 February 2026. The parties to file short notes of their respective submissions not exceeding five pages each at least three days in advance of the next date of hearing before the learned Commercial Court so as to facilitate expediting of the matter. Learned counsel for the parties would not be entitled to seek any adjournment from the learned Commercial Court on the date fixed. The learned Commercial Court to decide the matter either on the said date or thereafter as expeditiously as possible.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea To Revise Delhi Judicial Services Exam 2023 Final Result, Says Interference May Open Floodgates

“We also request the learned Commercial Court that in case the said applications have been accorded registration numbers by the Registry of the District Court, to reflect the registration numbers in the order which is passed.”

“All applications, at the time of filing, would be duly registered.” “The registration number of the application(s) would be reflected in the cause list when the matter is placed before the Court.” “Pleadings in the application(s) would be required to cite the concerned Application Number.” and “Orders passed on the said applications should also reflect the Application Number(s) in which the orders are passed.”

“Let a copy of this order be marked to the Principal District & Sessions Judge for circulating among all the learned District Judges as well as to the learned Registrar General of this Court, so that compliance therewith can be ensured.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwary, Mr. Amber Jain and Mr. Sarath J Prakash, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Suresh Sharma v. Krishan Lal Thukral

Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:855-DB

Case Number: FAO (COMM) 21/2024

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla