Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Potato Variety Case, Bars Counsel from Virtual Hearings for Breach of VC Rules
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia issued an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from producing, selling, marketing, or promoting the potato variety “SRF-C51” for infringing the plaintiffs’ registered plant variety “Colomba.” The Court also directed the removal of an online video promoting the impugned product. Additionally, noting the defendants’ counsel’s non-compliance with the Delhi High Court Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025, during virtual proceedings, the Court prohibited her from appearing before it through video conferencing in future hearings.
The plaintiffs, engaged in the cultivation and commercialization of registered plant varieties, filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court against the defendants alleging infringement of their registered potato variety “Colomba.” The dispute arose when the defendants were found cultivating and marketing a potato variety identified as “SRF-C51,” alleged to be genetically identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ protected variety. The plaintiffs sought interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to restrain the defendants and their representatives from producing, selling, or promoting the impugned crop and from using the denomination “Colomba” or any similar expression.
A Local Commissioner appointed by the Court visited the defendants’ premises to collect crop samples, accompanied by Head Constable Bakshish Singh of P.S. Sadar, Kapurthala, Punjab. The Local Commissioner later reported obstruction during execution of the commission, alleging the Head Constable failed to render assistance. The Court directed him to file an affidavit in response, which he did, denying the allegations and stating that he had accompanied the Commissioner only for security. His affidavit was taken on record, and his personal appearance was dispensed with.
The expert’s report on the collected samples, submitted in sealed cover, concluded that the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ potato samples were either from the same cultivator or shared common parental lines. No written statement was filed by the defendants within the prescribed time. During subsequent hearings, the defendants’ counsel appeared through video conferencing but was noted to have muted proceedings and turned off her camera, conduct which the Court found contrary to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025
Justice Tejas Karia recorded that “no Reply or Written Statement has been filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and in view of the Report dated 29.05.2025 filed by the expert in a sealed cover stating that the samples provided to the expert which were procured from the Defendants by the learned Local Commissioner; when compared with the Plaintiff’s sample, it could be concluded that the Plaintiff’s sample and the Defendant’s samples are either from the same cultivator or share common parental lines.”
The Court further “having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the pleadings and the documents on record, a prima facie case has been made out on behalf of the Plaintiff for grant of an ad-interim injunction in terms of Paragraph Nos. 19(a) to 19(d). Balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. Irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ad-interim injunction is not granted.”
Addressing the conduct of the defendants’ counsel, the Court “recorded that Ms. Renu Arora, learned Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, initially appeared through Video Conference and when a query was put up by this Court, her video was switched off and she was on mute.” When questioned, the counsel stated “that a parallel hearing was going on so she had put this Court on mute and the video was also switched off.”
The Court “found this conduct contrary to the Electronic Evidence and Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 of the High Court of Delhi” and accordingly “barred Ms. Renu Arora, Advocate, to appear before this Court through Video Conferencing henceforth.”
It was also noted that the Head Constable from Punjab Police, who had accompanied the Local Commissioner during inspection, filed an affidavit denying obstruction. The Court “took the affidavit on record and dispensed with his personal presence.”
Justice Tejas Karia directed that “Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their directors, affiliates, partners, related parties, employees, officers, agents, stockists, distributors, contractors, licensees, dealers and all other acting for and on its behalf are restrained from producing, selling, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, importing, exporting and in any other manner, directly or indirectly commercializing or dealing in potato variety as specified by them as ‘SRF-C51’ and/or any other potato products that infringe the subject matter of Plaintiffs’ registered plant variety ‘COLOMBA’.”
“Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their directors, affiliates, partners, related parties, employees, officers, agents, stockists, distributors, contractors, licensees, dealers and all other acting for and in its behalf are restrained from producing, selling, marketing, distributing, offering for sale, importing, exporting and in any other manner, directly or indirectly commercializing or dealing in any products with the denomination / expression ‘COLOMBA / CLOMBA’ or any other denomination which is identical / deceptively similar thereto in relation to its product in any manner, also either as a prefix or as a suffix or abbreviation, which violates the rights
“Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 shall take down of YouTube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfJU-w7GQBY for illegally promoting the sale of their variety ‘SRF-C51’ as being identical to Plaintiffs’ registered plant variety ‘COLOMBA’.”
“The Application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 985/2024 & I.A. 44338/2024 — List before the Court on 19.01.2026.”.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Dr. Amitavo Mitra, Mr. Vivek Ayyagari, Ms. Shruti Jain, and Ms. Harsshita Pothiraj, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Ms. Renu Arora, Advocate
Case Title: Mahindra HZPC Private Limited & Ors. v. Shri Ram Farms & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 985/2024 & I.A. 44338/2024
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
