Delhi District Court
Ms Jay Shree Foods And Spices vs Satya Shiv Sal Foods Pvt Ltd on 12 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 89/2025
CNR NO.DLNE01-001820-2025
M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SH. MANISH ANAND
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SH. ARIF ALI.
HAVING OFFICE AT
SHUB SADAN, MADHAI CHOWK,
BADAUN, U.P. - 243601
........ Plaintiff.
VERSUS
(1) SATYA SHIV SAI FOOD PVT. LTD
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS
HAVING ADDRESS AT
C/O DEEPIKA GUPTA NAJIHAI BAZAR,
HATHRAS, UTTAR PRADESH - 204101.
(2) PINKI RANI
DIRECTOR OF SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT.
LTD.
HAVING ADDRESS AT:
C/O DEEPIKA GUPTA NAJIHAI BAZAR,
HATHRAS, UTTAR PRADESH.
(3) PREM VARSHNEY
DIRECTOR OF SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT.
LTD.
HAVING ADDRESS AT
C/O DEEPIKA GUPTA NAJIHAI BAZAR,
HATHRAS, UTTAR PRADESH.
............. Defendants
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 1 of 32
M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES
VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Date of Institution : 04.07.2025
Date of final arguments : 08.04.2026
Date of decision : 12.05.2026
Decision : Decreed.
JUDGMENT:-
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking reliefs of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and passing off Trademark; copyright, delivery and rendition of accounts, damages etc.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiff is a sole proprietor firm known for its goods being sold under the mark 'JAY SHREE' for the last five decades i.e. since 1974 and is marching forward to become India's top spice manufacturing firm dealing in marketing and manufacturing of high quality spice and other allied goods. Mr. Manish Anand is the son and legal heir of Mr. Surya Prakash, the registered owner of the said trademark, who has assigned all rights, interest, title and benefit/uses of mark 'JAY SHREE' alongwith goodwill of the firm to plaintiff and the necessary application for change in proprietorship in the trade mark has already been moved vide application bearing no.12260479 dated 30.04.2025. It is contended that the plaintiff is exclusive owner of copyright in artistic works, trade dress/colour combination/lettering style of various labels/pouches/sachets/packets under which its spice products are sold and the plaintiff has been dealing with the said CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 2 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
copyright in the course of trade in relation to its said goods and business inter-alia within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyright Act.
It is further contended that all reference to the said Trade Marks and said Labels/packets/pouches, sachets includes their respective copyright therein as well. No one other than the plaintiff can therefore use the said artistic work without the permission of the plaintiff. By reason of its high quality, standard and easy availability of the plaintiff's spice products, the plaintiff's trademarks/labels/trade dress/logos/device marks/artistic works have acquired immense reputation and goodwill in India which signifies the unique identity and singular source associates with the plaintiff's spice products. Further any unauthorized adoption and use of identical trademark, trade dress, selling of deceptively similar products would amount to infringement and passing off.
It is further contended that in view of the plaintiff's proprietary rights both under statutory and common law in his said trademarks/labels/trade dress/logos/device marks/artistic works their goodwill & reputation and his copyrights, the plaintiff has the exclusive right to the use thereof and nobody can be permitted to use the same/identical or any other deceptively similar trademarks/labels/trade dress/logos/device marks/artistic works in any manner whatsoever in relation to spice products without the leave and license of the plaintiff.
It is further contended that the defendant no.1 CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 3 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
company registered in the year 2013 under the Companies Act, 2013 and day to day affairs of the defendant no.1 company has been managed by defendant no.2 & 3. It is stated that as per National Industrial Classification, the defendant no.1 is involved in the business of accounting, book keeping and accountancy etc. Defendant no.2 & 3 in connivance with defendant no.1 company and in order to ride over the goodwill of the plaintiff engaged themselves in the manufacturing of, marketing of and in the trade of manufacturing of spice products. The defendants in connivance with each other are advertising, manufacturing, distributing, selling, exporting and supplying deceptively similar products bearing mark "Jay Shree Maharaj" at the back of the packet, in the areas of plaintiff's market & in infringement of registered trademarks "JAY SHREE' in violation of the rights in trademarks, labels, trade dress, logos, device marks and artistic works. It is further submitted that as of now the plaintiff is only aware some of his spice products viz. Dhaniya Powder, Red Chili Powder, Turmeric Powder are being manufactured bearing similar artistic work, trade dress of plaintiff's products in violation of the rights in trademarks, labels, trade dress, logos, device marks being done by the defendants.
It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff's representative in May, 2025 reported the sale and listing of spurious products/impugned goods/deceptively similar products being similar to the plaintiff's product over online platform namely Indiamart. Upon investigation, it came to know that the CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 4 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
products of the defendants are an exact replica of the plaintiff's products and are in violation of the plaintiff's rights in his trademarks, labels, trade dress, logos, device marks and artistic works. The defendants impugned/deceptively similar products even carry the plaintiff's ingredient list, artwork, images, descriptive content, placement of letters and images, colour combination, writing style and entire trade dress of packaging/labels/pouches/packets/sachets. Moreover, the defendants are selling the product under the name - 'Prem's' which is not a registered mark however, the defendants are using it as a registered mark with symbol in contravention of the provisions of Trademarks Act.
It is further stated that the plaintiff and his marketing team through their sources found out that defendants are running its business at Hathras and has its manufacturing unit at numerous places in India and are manufacturing deceptively similar goods as to the plaintiff's products in violation of the rights in trademarks, labels, trade dress, logos, device marks and artistic works.
It is further stated that the defendant is running its business at Hathras and has its manufacturing unit at numerous places in India and are manufacturing deceptively similar goods as to plaintiff's products in violation of the rights in trademarks, labels, trade dress, logos, device marks and artistic works. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit against the defendants with the following prayers:
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 5 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
(i) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, distributor, servants, licensees or any person claiming under them or through them from manufacturing, advertising, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, directly or indirectly, carrying on any business including on their website and third party websites under the deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/any other allied and cognate goods and/or any other identical/deceptively similar trademarks/ copy right in artistic works/trade dress amounting to infringement of registered trademarks bearing registration nos. 165l895 and Copyright;
(ii) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, distributors, servants, licensees or any person claiming under them or through them from manufacturing, advertising, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, directly or indirectly, carrying on any business including on their website and third party websites under the deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/any other allied and cognate goods and/or any other identical/deceptively similar trademarks/ copyright in artistic works/trade dress as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to Unfair Competition and Passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff;
(iii) An order restraining the Defendants from directly or indirectly advertising, marketing and selling the impugned CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 6 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
products/ deceptively similar products on online market places, social media platforms and their own websites and third party websites like India Mart,
(iv) For disclosure of information by Defendants about sale of total products under impugned marks/Deceptively similar products and last batch number of deceptive similar products manufactured with details of payments received.
(v) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, distributors, servants, licensees or any person claiming under them or through them from manufacturing, advertising, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, directly or indirectly, carrying on any business including on their website and third party websites under the deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/any other allied and cognate goods and/ or any other identical/ deceptively similar trademarks/ copyright in artistic works/ trade dress amounting to amounting to Infringement of Copyright of Plaintiff in artistic work/trade dress/ colour combination/ writing style/packaging/label/ packets/pouches/sachets.
(vi) Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, distributors, servants, licensees or any person claiming under them or through them from manufacturing, advertising, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, directly or indirectly, carrying on any business including on their website and third CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 7 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
party websites under the deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/ any other allied and cognate goods and/or any other identical/deceptively similar trademarks/copyright in artistic works/trade dress amounting to dilution of Plaintiff's trading style and trademarks;
(vii) An order for rendition of accounts for all profits made by the Defendants by use of deceptively similar product/ impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/any other allied and cognate goods and/or any other identical/deceptively similar trademarks/ copyright in artistic works/trade dress
(viii) An order for the destruction or delivery up upon affidavit of the products, stationery, brochures, dies, blocks, cartons, labels, advertisement material and/or any other infringing material of Defendants ' deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/any other allied and cognate goods and/or any other identical/deceptively similar trademarks/copyright in artistic works/ trade dress .
(ix) An order for damages as ascertained by this Hon'ble Court in the present proceedings.
3. The defendants filed written statement contending that
- this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try or adjudicate the present suit either under Section 20 of the CPC or under Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or under Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as mere listing of the defendant's products on the website of IndiaMART would not by CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 8 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
itself confer jurisdiction upon this court. It is further contended that - the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the present suit; lack of proof of Commercial Use of the impugned Mark; the plaintiff failed to establish authorship and adoption of artistic work; invalid and non subsisting registration, suit barred by delay and laches. It is further contended that the plaintiff failed to file LPC nor complied the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before filing the present suit.
It is submitted that the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of SPICES and related food products since the year 2013. The defendant with honestly with bonafide intentions, adopted the trademark "PREM'S in the year 2013 for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing of said goods. The defendant adopted the expression "JAI SHRI MAHARAJ'' in the year 2024 to be used in conjunction with its principal trademark "PREM'S". As part of its branding and marketing strategy, the defendant adopted the expression "JAI SHRI MAHARAJ" in the year 2024 to be used in conjunction with its principal trademark "PREM'S. The composite mark "PREM'S JAI SHRI MAHARAJ" often represented in a distinctive and stylized artistic device format forms a significant and recognizable element of the defendant's product level and overall brand identity. The defendant is also the true owner and lawful registered proprietor of the artistic work of the titles "PREM'S AND PREM'S JAI SHRI MAHARAJ under the CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 9 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 vide Registration Nos.A-117119-2017 and AT -20250161124.
In parawise reply, the defendants denied all the contents of the plaint and lastly prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the contentions mentioned in the plaint and denied the averments of defendants in the written statement.
5. Vide order dated 14.11.2025, following issues were framed for adjudication of the case:
(1) Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?...OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? ...OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed for? ...OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?...OPP (5) Relief.
6. The evidence in this case was recorded before the Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 14.11.2025. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed as per the averments in the plaint. He also relied upon the following documents:
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 10 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS. (1) Suit as Ex.PW1/B. (2) Copy of trademark certificate bearing no.1651895 as Ex.PW1/2. (3) Copy of assignment deed dated 07.04.25 as Ex.PW1/3. (4) Special power of attorney dated 16.04.2025 in favour of Sh. Arif Ali as Ex.PW1/5. (5) Copy of the master data of the defendant no.1 company as Ex.PW1/8. (6) Copy of the advertisements and photographs showing the presence of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/11. (7) Copy of the the cease - desist notice dated 05.10.2024
sent by the plaintiff counsel to the defendant counsel as Ex.PW1/12.
(8) Copy of the application as Ex.PW1/C. (9) Copy of the invoices of printing vendor showing the
order placed for printing - 'Jayshree' wrappers for the period of year 2000 till 2024 as Ex.PW1/15.
(10) Copy of the application seeking renewal of the registered trademark - 'Jayshree' as well as letter moved reminding the renewal of registered trademark - 'Jayshree' as Ex.PW1/16.
(11) Copy of aadhaar card of the proprietor Manish Anand as Ex.PW1/1.
(12) Complete file wrapper pertaining to application bearing temp. No. - 12260479 seeking change in subsequent CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 11 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
ownership from Sh. Surya Prakash to M/s. Jay Shree Foods and Spices acting through fits authorised signatory Sh. Manish Anand as Ex.PW1/4.
(13) Copy of GST certificate issued in favour of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/6.
(14) Copy of the FSSAI/License in favour of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/7.
(15) Copy of the complete wrapper pertaining to defendants trademark application bearing no. - 02590504 and opposition application bearing temp no.12133398 as Ex.PW1/9. (16) Copy of the parcel photographs showing the infringing goods bearing look and feel of plaintiff's mark - jayshree and delivery receipt of the parcel sent by defendant to the AR of the plaintiff alongwith tracking report as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly).
(17) Copy of the calender of year 2000 & 2007 as Ex.PW1/13.
(18) Copy of the small banner/packet showing the advertisement of mark - 'Jayshree' as Ex.PW1/14.
7. In rebuttal, the defendant examined DW1 Sh. Prem Varshney vide his affidavit Ex.DW1/A who deposed as per the averments in the written statement. He also relied upon the following documents:
(1) Master data of defendant no.1 as Ex.DW1/1.
(2) Board Resolution dated 14.04.2025 of the witness as CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 12 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Ex.DW1/2. (3) Allotment of TIN in favour of the defendants as Ex.PW1/3. (4) GST registration certificate issued in favour of the defendant as Ex.PW1/4. (5) FSSAI license in favour of the defendant as Ex.PW1/5. (6) Certificate of registration of the defendants by ISO as Ex.PW1/6. (7) NOC issued to the defendants as Ex.PW1/7. (8) Certificate of registration issued by legal meteorology as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly). (9) Trademark registration certificates of defendant no.1 as Ex.PW1/9. (10) Current status and acceptance order application no.6660213 as Ex.PW1/10. (11) Copyright registration certificate as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly). (12) Purchase invoices as Ex.PW1/12 (Colly). (13) Sales invoices as Ex.PW1/13 (Colly). (14) CA certified sales of the defendants as Ex.PW1/14. (15) Screenshot of newspaper, advertisements of the defendant as Ex.PW1/15. (16) Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) of CPC as Ex.DW1/16. (17) True download copy of the notice of opposition dated CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 13 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
10.11.25 filed by the plaintiff against the trademark application no.6660213 vide opposition no.1408861 as Ex.DW1/17. (18) True downloaded copy of counter statement dated 12.11.25 by defendant trademark application no.6660213 vide opposition no.1408861 as Ex.DW1/18.
(19) True downloaded copy of form TM-M dated 12.11.25 by the defendant for the application no.6660213 as Ex.DW1/19. (20) True downloaded copy of scrutiny report dated 11.10.25 for application no.771719 as Ex.DW1/20. (21) True downloaded copy of letter related to post registration TM-P as Ex.DW1/21.
(22) True downloaded copy of objection filed on form TM- M bearing application no.771719 dated 20.11.2025 as Ex.DW1/22.
8. I have heard the final arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the records as well. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the counsel for the parties in support of their contents alongwith the following case laws:
Case laws relied upon by the plaintiff:
(1) Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors. reported as (2006) 8 SCC 726. (2) K. R. China Krishna Chettiar vs. Sh. Ambal and Co. Madras and Anr. reported as (1969) 2 SCC 131;
(3) Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 14 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Ltd. reported as (2001) 5 SCC 73;
(4) Colgate Palmolive Company and Anr. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. reported as 108 (2003) DLT 51; (5) Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. reported as 2009 (108) DRJ 207;
(6) Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar reported as (2005) 1 SCC 787;
(7) Union of India & Ors. v. Malhotra Book Depot, 2013 (134) DRJ 504 (DB);
(8) B. C. Hasaram & Sons. v. Nirmala Agarwal reported as 2025 SCC Online Del 8353;
(9) Johnson & Johnson PTE. Ltd. v. Mr. Abbireddi Satish Kumar & Ors. Decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS (Comm) 801/2023 dated 04.02.2025;
(10) Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2025 SCC Online Del 8724; Case laws relied upon by the defendants:
(1) Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Ors. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6790/2003 dated 06.12.2004;
(2) Amrish Agarwal v. M/s. Venus Home Appliances Pvt.
Ltd. passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CM (M) 1059/2018 dated 27.08.2019;
(3) Devarpan Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Reported as 2022 SCC Online Del 2515;
(4) Yamini Manohar v. T K. D Keerthi decided by CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 15 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP No.32275/2023. (5) Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh reported as (2015) 16 SCC 795.
9. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1:
Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?...OPD The onus to prove the above issue was on the defendant. This issue has been framed in view of the objections taken by the defendant in the written statement. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit either under Section 20 of CPC or under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or under Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not shown any material facts or documentary evidence to establish that it actually and voluntarily carries on business or personally works for gain within the jurisdiction of this court. It is respectfully submitted that IndiaMART is not an e-commerce marketplace for direct sale or purchase of products but merely a business to business directory facilitating communication between potential buyers and sellers and therefore, mere listing of the defendant's products on the website of IndiaMART would not confer jurisdiction of this court. The counsel for the defendant argued that since this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 16 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
suit, the suit be dismissed for the want of lack of jurisdiction. He also relied upon the case law titled Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC Online Del 2404 in support of his contentions.
Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as the defendant is involved in the marketing, soliciting, offering for sale, selling and networking and have intention to sell their impugned products in the markets of North East Delhi. It is further submitted that the whole or part of cause of action for filing the present suit has been arisen within the jurisdiction of this court.
Section 20 (c) CPC provides that the suit has to be instituted where the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Cause of action is bundle of facts, which is to be proved by plaintiff in order to succeed in the suit. I have gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS (OS) 243/2010 decided on 26.07.2012 titled Pramod Gupta Vs. Romesh Power Product Pvt. Ltd. wherein the similar issue was discussed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the ratio of the judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The relevant para in respect of cause of action i.e. para nos.12 and 15 are reproduced for ready reference to come to the conclusion that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and this court accordingly has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter as below:-
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 17 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
"12. A cause of action means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded. It does not comprise evidence necessary to prove such facts, but every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to enable him to obtain a decree. Everything which if not proved would give the defendant a right to immediate judgment must be part of the cause of action. But it has no relation judgment must be par of the cause of action. But it has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
15. In the matter of contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made.
The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract. But making of an offer on a particular place does not form cause of action in a suit for damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, acceptance of an offer and its intimation result in a contract and hence a suit can be filed in a court within whose jurisdiction the acceptance was communicated. The performance of a contract is part of cause of action and a suit in respect of the breach can always be filed at the place where the contract should have been performed or its performance completed. If the contract is to be performed at the place where it is made, the suit on the contract is to be filed there and nowhere else. In suits for agency actions the cause of action arises at the place where the contract of agency was made or the place where actions are to be rendered and payment is to be made by the agent. Part of cause of action arises where money is expressly or impliedly payable under a contract. In cases of repudiation of a contract, the place where repudiation is received is the place where the suit would lie. If CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 18 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
a contract is pleaded as part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Court where the suit is filed and that contract is found to be invalid, such part of cause of the action disappears. The above are some of the connecting factors."
This court is also fortified in view of judgment by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RSA No.40/2013 decided on 05.03.2014 titled Satyapal vs Slick Auto Accessories Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. in respect of the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the cause of action in respect of such transactions wherein similar issue was discussed.
The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that the defendants' deceptively similar products are available for sale on online platform IndiaMART and the same are sold by the defendant no.1 in Chand Bagh Area within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff has filed documents in this regard which is proved by PW1 to show that products of defendant no.1 was delivered within the jurisdiction of this court. Further the issue of jurisdiction appears to be raised at the time of deciding the interlocutory application and the attempt of defendants to reopen the issue of jurisdiction is legally impermissible pursuant to the judgment of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar and Anr., (2005) 1 SCC 787. In view of the ratio of the judgment as well as facts on record, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. The issue is accordingly decided against the defendants.
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 19 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS. ISSUES NO.2 to 4: (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of
permanent injunction as prayed for? ...OPP (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed for? ...OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for?...OPP
10. It is now well settled/laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del) as to how infringement of trade mark is to be seen, to quote:-
12.It is well settled that in an action for alleged infringement of a registered trade mark, if the impugned marked used by the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs, no further questions have been to be addressed and it has to be held that there is indeed an infringement. If the mark is not identical, the matter has to be further considered and it has to be seen whether the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Deceptive similarity means that the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to goods in respect of which the plaintiff got its mark registered.
For the purpose of this comparison, the two marks have to be compared, not by placing them side by side, but by asking the question whether having due regard to relevant surrounding circumstances, defendant's mark is similar to that of the plaintiffs, as would be remembered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfections. On the touchstone of this query, it is to be determined whether the mark of the defendant is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The sequitur to the aforesaid preposition of law, is that, in an action of infringement, for the success by the plaintiff, he need not prove that the whole of his registered trade mark has been copied, but he can also succeed, if, he shows that the mark used by the defendant is similar to the mark of the plaintiff, as it would be CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 20 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
numbered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfection or with its usual imperfection or that its essential particulars or the distinguishing or essential feature has been copied (ILR 197 (II) Delhi 225 Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bhartiya Dhoop Karvalaya Para- 7).
11. The brief and relevant facts for filing of the case has been mentioned at the outset. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" which is reproduced as below:-
"101. Burden of proof- whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 21 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
12. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe as under:-
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P-1 were duly executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more importantly, the original title documents of the subject property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her father-in-law Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
''8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a- vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 22 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
13. The relevant Section 103 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which cast onus on the parties to prove their contention is also reproduced for ready reference as under:
Section 103 Evidence Act, 1872: Burden of Proof as to particular fact The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustration:
(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
14. All these issues shall be decided together being interrelated and connected. I have gone through all the documents filed and proved by the parties. The plaintiff alleged that its trademark/work mark/trade name "JAY SHREE" has been infringed by the defendants and hence this suit was filed. On the other hand, it is denied by the defendant that it has unauthorizedly adopted or used any identical or deceptively similar trademark, trade dress, label, logo, device mark, or artistic work of the plaintiff including the mark JAY SHREE or any of its elements in relations to goods under Class 30. It is submitted that the defendant's mark is PREM'S JAI SHRI MAHARAJ wherein the word PREM'S is prominently displayed in a large font and the phrase JAI SHRI MAHARAJ is a CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 23 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
devotional expression reflecting the defendant's cultural and spiritual sentiments. The PW1 filed his affidavit by way of evidence and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The PW1 during cross-examination deposed as under:
"Question: How did you came to know that the defendants are allegedly selling the impugned products in Delhi?
Ans. While doing the online search on google we came to know that the defendant is listed on India mart website with the name of their company from where I called defendant no.3 through India mart. Defendant no.3 thereafter gave his personal number and asked me to call on his personal number. In discussion with him I told him that I am calling from Delhi and want to buy his products, on which he said that he keeps selling his material to Delhi and told me to come to Hathras for doing business. On reaching Hathras I called defendant no.3 however he told he is not in Hathras and thus he would not be able to meet, he guided me to a location in Nijhai Bazar, Ghanta Ghar, Hathras where I met some other person (whose name I do not remember). After that the said person spoke to Mr. Varshney and thereafter they told me to deposit approximately Rs.3000/- for sending samples of chilli, turmeric, coriander and other spices of different sizes including cartage.
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 24 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
It is correct that I had read the complete suit including the documents attached with it before filing. I have no knowledge whether India mart is an interactive website or not or that order can be placed directly from it.
XXXX XXXX XXXX It is correct that I have not filed any call records or itemised bills of my phone regarding the alleged conversion between me and defendant no.3. It is correct that I do not have any invoice or acknowledgment of the above mentioned transaction of Rs.3000/- pertaining to my purchase in Hathras from defendant. The witness relied on Ex.PW1/10 (page no.78) i.e. courier receipt.
It is correct that I went to Hathras sometime between May to June, 2025 for the purpose of investigation of the defendant, to invest the impugned products and buy them for Delhi.
I can not tell the exact weight of carton box, but it was a big box. It must be approximately 2.5x2 in rectangular shape. I do not remember the amount of which the products were purchased by me from defendant.
XXXX XXXX XXXX I paid Rs.3000/- paid in cash of which I do not have any receipt.
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 25 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
I state that Mr. Anand told me that the defendants are selling their products in Delhi but I do not have any proof of the same.
The knowledge about my visit to Hathras for purchasing impugned products was not in the knowledge of Mr. Anand.
XXXX XXXX XXXX At this stage, the attention of the witness is drawn to page no.79 of Ex.PW1/10 of suit. It is correct that the said document is the tracking of shipment sent by the defendant to me. I can not say whether the defendant sent the impugned products from Hathras or anywhere else.
It is correct that nowhere in my suit I have mentioned that the defendant deliberately sent the impugned products from Aligarh instead of Hathras.
XXXX XXXX XXXX I have no information & knowledge if the impugned products of the defendant are being sold anywhere else in Delhi as I have not done survey.
XXXX XXXX XXXX It is correct that after receiving the alleged consignment dated 04.06.2025, I did not conduct any investigation/survey regarding the presence of the defendant's impugned products in Delhi. I have not knowledge whether Mr. Anand is aware CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 26 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
about the presence of the defendant's impugned products in Delhi.
It is correct that I have no personal knowledge regarding the alleged oral assignment of 2000 from the father of Mr. Anand to Mr. Anand (Vol. However, after I met Mr. Anand and his father, I came to know about this through them).
It is correct that all the events, facts and documents mentioned in the suit prior to 16.04.2025 are not in my personal knowledge and I am aware of them only of the basis of narration done to me by Mr. Anand and his father.
I have not done any personal verification of fact finding to ascertain the authenticity of facts, events and documents given to me by Mr. Anand and his father before filing them in the present suit. (Vol. As per my knowledge they are correct).
XXXX XXXX XXXX It is correct that the plaintiff does not have any registered copyright over the design, get up, colour combination, label, artwork of its packing of which the infringement is alleged in the present suit. It is correct that the plaintiff has till date nor applied for the registration of copyright over the design, get up, colour combination, label, artwork of its packing of which the infringement is alleged in the present CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 27 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
suit".
15. In rebuttal, the defendant examined DW1 Sh. Prem Varshney by way of his affidavit Ex.DW1/A. He was cross- examined by the counsel for the plaintiff at length. DW1 during cross-examination admitted the images of his products as shown by the plaintiff in the plaint and further admitted use of the packaging for selling the products. The witness was also shown the website of IndiaMART during his cross-examination and he admitted the listing of the details of defendant no.1 company on IndiaMART. The impugned packaging/trade dress of the defendants appears to be deceptively similar and accordingly causing infringement of the plaintiff's product and the defendants activity further amounts to passing off. I have gone through the judgment of Delhi High Court in case tilted The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Ashwajeet Garg & Ors. reported as 2010 (2014) DLT 421 wherein it is held as under:
"21. The key factors to be kept in mind while comparing rival marks for deceptive similarity, as laid down by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Anchor Electronics And Electricals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), is that phonetic similarity constitutes an important index of whether a mark bears a deceptive or misleading similarity to another. The phonetic structure indicates how the rival marks when pronounced appear to be ears of the person hearing the words. Our country is enriched by a diversity of languages and scripts and keeping the aspect of such diversity in mind, the courts have to consider how the rival marks are spelt and pronounced in languages in which they are commonly used. What is important for consideration is the usage of words in India, the manner in which a word would be written in Indian languages and the similarity of pronunciation if the rival marks are used. What the Court must assess is the general profile of the Indian consumer and, CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 28 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
associated with that, the cultural traits that underline the spelling and pronunciation of words. The test as laid down is not whether a customer who wishes to buy the product of the plaintiff is likely to end up buying the product of the defendant. The test is whether the ordinary customer is likely to be led to believe that the product of the defendant is associated with the mark and the trading style of the plaintiff."
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 laid down the test of infringement and passing off as to whether the misrepresentation made by the defendant is of such a nature as is likely to cause an ordinary consumer to confuse one product for another, due to identity of mark, to the extent that a person of ordinary prudence would not be able to distinguish between the two. The marks of the parties are to be viewed from the perspective of a "common man" or "a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection". When the marks are compared as a whole, the similarity of striking and likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of the consumer is the issue of assessment. Both parties are dealing in identical goods sold through common trade channels. Admittedly the plaintiff is the prior user and owner of the registered trademark 'JAI SHREE'. The documents relied by the defendants of its products and use of the tag line "JAI SHREE MAHARAJ" on the packets of its products are identical as of the plaintiff's products. The comparison of the plaintiff and defendants' products shows similar/identical colour combination, layout, placement of text, font, style and size, descriptive contents and ingredients list. The CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 29 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
overall visual impression of both the products are deceptively similar. The plaintiff further proved to be the prior user of the trademark. In view of the same, this court is of the opinion that the defendants are infringing the trademark of the plaintiff and case of passing off is made out in favour of the plaintiff.
In view of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the parties and documents on record, aforementioned discussions and examining the case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved the issue no.(2). The issue no.2 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
16. The plaintiff alleged to suffer damages on account of use of trademark/designed by the defendants but no such record is filed to prove any damages suffered by the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff has not filed any data of sale by the defendants to the customers. In view of the absence of empirical data, the claim of the plaintiff regarding rendition of account and damages appears to be without any basis. The issue no.3 & 4 are accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
Relief:-
17. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this court is of the view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. The suit is decree in CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 30 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and the following reliefs are granted:
(1) The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants qua permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, distributor, servants, licensees or any person claiming under them or through them from manufacturing, advertising, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, directly or indirectly, carrying on any business including on their website and third party websites under the deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/ any other allied and cognate goods and/ or any other identical/ deceptively similar trademarks/ copy right in artistic works/ trade dress amounting to infringement of registered trademarks 'JAY SHREE' bearing registration nos. 165l895.
(2) The defendants, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, distributors, servants, licensees or any person claiming under them or through them are further restrained from manufacturing, advertising, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, directly or indirectly, carrying on any business including on their website and third party websites under the deceptively similar product/impugned trademarks, included in class 30 and/ any other allied and cognate goods and/ or any other identical/deceptively similar trademarks/copyright in artistic works/ trade dress as may be likely to cause confusion or CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 31 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.
deception amounting to Unfair Competition and Passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff.
18. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit also. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
19. Judgment be also uploaded on the server.
20. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. GORAKH Digitally signed by GORAKH NATH PANDEY NATH Date: 2026.05.18 PANDEY 11:14:53 +0530 Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY) on 12 May, 2026.
th District Judge (Commercial Court) North East: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) 89/2025 Page No. 32 of 32 M/S. JAY SHREE FOODS AND SPICES VS. SATYA SHIV SAI FOODS PVT. LTD. & ORS.