Delhi District Court
Gandhi Hospital Through Ar vs Tiis India Marketing Pvt Ltd. And Ors on 22 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, CIVIL
JUDGE-01(SOUTH WEST) DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Unique case ID No. 1468/2022
CNR No. DLSW030029262022
IN THE MATTER OF: -
GANDHI HOSPITAL
(A UNIT OF PAWAN GANDHI HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD)
C-50 & 51, OM VIHAR, UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110059 (INDIA)
EMAIL: [email protected]
WHATSAPP: +91 9818221431
(THROUGH ITS AR SHRI SANDEEP MALHOTRA)
... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.TIIS India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
(CIN No. U74999DL2021PTC380965) (Through its Managing Director/Principal Officer)
2. Nand Kishor Tiwari, Director (DIN No. 09170576) TIIS India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
3. Ranju Tiwari, Director (DIN No. 09170577) TIIS India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
4. Vaibhav Tiwari, Director (DIN No. 09170578) TIIS India Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
All at: - RZF 100 & 101, Ground Floor, Nihal Vihar, Nangloi (Near Sai Baba Mandir), Delhi-110041 (INDIA) Mobile: +91 9212259595 Email: [email protected] ...DEFENDANTS Date of Institution : 17.11.2022 Date of framing of issues : 23.02.2023 Date of final arguments : 15.12.2025 Date of Decision : 22.12.2025 Decision : DECREED SUIT FOR DECLARATION ALONGWITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, PERMANENT AND PROHIBITORY INJUNCTION Digitally signed JUDGMENT ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22 16:31:51 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 1 of 15
1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall dispose of a suit for declaration along with consequential relief, permanent and prohibitory injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is necessary to dwell upon the plethora of pleadings in the present suit.
AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT: -
2. Succinctly, it is the case of the Plaintiff that Gandhi Hospital, a unit of Pawan Gandhi HealthCare Private Limited, is a 60-bedded secondary care hospital established in the year 1989 and managed by its Directors, Dr. Pawan Gandhi and Dr. Mansi Gandhi. The hospital is equipped with advanced healthcare technologies, smart digital systems and a robust Hospital Information System, providing comprehensive medical services to all sections of society under one roof.
3. It is averred that in December 2021, a representative of Defendant No.1 approached Dr. Pawan Gandhi, Director of the Plaintiff Company, proposing to provide marketing services for Gandhi Hospital and assured that availing such services would substantially increase patient inflow and business. Although Dr. Pawan Gandhi initially declined, he was persuaded by repeated representations and assurances made by the Defendant no.1, pursuant to which a Marketing Agreement dated 20.12.2021 was executed.
4. Despite the assurances and guarantees given personally by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4, no increase in patient footfall or business was observed. This was notwithstanding the fact that space was provided to Defendant No.1 within the hospital premises at their request. In August 2022, the Plaintiff discovered that a representative of Defendant No.1 was unauthorisedly accessing the hospital's computer systems and illegally procuring confidential patient data, including data of existing and long- standing patients, amounting to data theft. Digitally signed ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22 16:32:01 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 2 of 15
5. Upon discovery, a meeting was immediately convened by Dr. Pawan Gandhi in the presence of all Defendants. The Manager of Defendant No.1 admitted the misconduct and assured that such acts would not be repeated. However, the Plaintiff refused to continue the Marketing Agreement. Considering the reputation of the hospital, the Plaintiff refrained from lodging a police complaint at that stage. Thereafter, Defendant No.1 raised false and fabricated bills, and Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 attempted to extort money by threatening to approach the Delhi Medical Council if the alleged dues were not paid.
6. It is further stated that to exert pressure, the Defendants lodged false complaints with more than 50 authorities through emails, deliberately tagging the Plaintiff Hospital with the sole intention of harassment. Upon legal scrutiny, the Plaintiff discovered that the said Marketing Agreement lacked legal sanction, was uncertain in its terms, incapable of interpretation, and was therefore void ab initio, having no legal effect whatsoever. The acts of data theft, extortion, intimidation and threats further rendered the said agreement invalid, though it was void from its inception.
7. It is mentioned by the Plaintiff that the Defendants continued their malicious campaign by lodging multiple false complaints with various authorities, levelling baseless, derogatory and defamatory allegations against the Plaintiff Hospital and its Directors, and persistently sending reminders to harass and malign the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts that such false accusations were premeditated, motivated by malice, and intended to cause humiliation, embarrassment and irreparable damage to the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff Hospital and its Directors.
8. Consequently, the Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice dated 24.09.2022, calling upon the Defendants to desist from making false complaints. Despite service of the notice, the Defendants threatened Dr. Pawan Gandhi with further obstruction in hospital operations and additional Digitally signed false complaints. by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:32:10 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 3 of 15
9. It is further averred that on 27.10.2022, unknown persons, acting at the behest of the Defendants, forcibly attempted to enter Dr. Pawan Gandhi's cabin, manhandled hospital staff, disrupted medical and administrative functions, shouted slogans, used abusive language and issued threats, demanding payment of alleged dues. The Defendants have persistently attempted to malign the Plaintiff Hospital and its doctors in the eyes of hospital staff, professional colleagues and the general public.
10. Due to these acts, the Plaintiff Hospital and its Doctors have suffered serious loss of reputation, goodwill and standing, and have been subjected to ridicule, contempt and professional prejudice. The Defendants have openly threatened to file complaints before numerous authorities on a daily basis, creating a reasonable apprehension of recurring nuisance and continued harassment, as evidenced by the incident dated 27.10.2022.
11. The Plaintiff submits that while the Defendants were free to approach statutory authorities for genuine grievances, they had no right to lodge false complaints, forcibly enter hospital premises, threaten staff, or obstruct hospital operations. In view of the continuing harassment, threats, false complaints, and disruption of hospital functioning, the Plaintiff was left with no alternative but to approach this Hon'ble Court and filed the present suit for seeking following reliefs: -
A. To Pass a decree for declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants No.1 to 4 thereby declaring the Marketing Agreement dated 17.12.2021 is null and void;
B. To Pass a Decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants directing No.1 to 4 from not indulging in any activity intended to create hindrances in smooth functioning of the plaintiff Hospital, entering into the Plaintiff Hospital premises, raising slogans and using abusive languages for Plaintiff Hospital and their Doctors;
C. To Pass a Decree of Prohibitory injunction in favour of the Plaintiff Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22 16:32:22 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 4 of 15 and against the Defendants thereby prohibiting/restraining the Defendants, his legal heirs, associates, agents, servants and other form creating hindrances in smooth functioning of the Hospital, entering into the Plaintiff Hospital premises, raising slogans and using abusive languages for Plaintiff Hospital and their Doctors within 200 meters of area of the Plaintiff Hospital, D. To Award the cost of the litigation including the counsel Fee: E. To grant any other and further relief (s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice by this Hon'ble court. AVERMENTS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT
12. Per Contra, the Defendants have denied all allegations made in the plaint and submit that the suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and filed with an ulterior motive to evade lawful payment of outstanding dues. The plaint, according to the Defendants, does not disclose any valid cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
13. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiff Hospital itself approached Defendant No.1 seeking marketing services for promotion of its hospital. After presentations and discussions, the parties voluntarily entered into a Marketing Agreement dated 20.12.2021 with free consent, without any coercion, misrepresentation or allurement.
14. It is the case of the Defendants that pursuant to the Marketing Agreement, the Defendants duly provided patients to the Plaintiff Hospital.
The Plaintiff Hospital treated the said patients and recovered the treatment charges from them. Having availed the benefits under the agreement and acted upon its terms, the Plaintiff failed to pay the Defendants their due consideration as agreed. In view of the fact that the agreement has been fully acted upon and partly performed by both parties, the Marketing Agreement cannot, at this stage, be declared null and void, as the same stands executed and accepted through performance.
15. The Defendants further submit that they raised genuine bills for Digitally signed by ANUBHAV Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 5 of 15 ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:32:36 +0530 services rendered for the period from 08.02.2022 to 22.09.2022 amounting to ₹4,10,706.57, out of which the Plaintiff paid only ₹37,350/- in part, leaving an outstanding amount of ₹3,73,356.57, which remains unpaid despite repeated demands. The Defendants also claim entitlement to the said amount along with interest @ 18% per annum.
16. According to the Defendants, the present suit is a counterblast to the Defendants' demand for payment of outstanding dues and has been filed only to avoid financial liability under the Marketing Agreement. The Defendants have categorically denied allegations of data theft, unauthorised access to hospital computers, extortion, threats, or any acceptance of wrongdoing. It is stated that the Defendants or their representatives never had access to the Plaintiff's computer systems, and the allegations are concocted, baseless and defamatory.
17. The Defendants deny having threatened the Plaintiff or its Directors at any point of time. They further deny lodging false complaints with authorities. It is contended that complaints, if any, were made lawfully for redressal of legitimate grievances arising out of non-payment of dues, which is a legal right and does not amount to defamation.
18. The Defendants further deny the alleged incident dated 27.10.2022, including allegations of forceful entry, manhandling of hospital staff, shouting of slogans or obstruction of hospital functioning. The Defendants submit that the said incident is a fabricated story created to give colour to the Plaintiff's false case.
19. It is asserted that the Plaintiff has deliberately concealed material facts, including part payments made under the agreement, which clearly demonstrate acceptance and implementation of the Marketing Agreement. Having availed benefits under the contract, the Plaintiff is estopped from challenging its validity.
20. The Defendants further submit that the Plaintiff lacks locus standi to file the present suit, that no cause of action ever arose in favour of Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:32:45 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 6 of 15 +0530 the Plaintiff, and that the suit has been filed with malicious intent and abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, the Defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs. REPLICATION
21. In replication, averments of the plaint have been reiterated by the plaintiff and contents of the written statement have been denied.
22. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2023, which are as follows:
i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration against the defendants thereby declaring the marketing agreement dt.17.12.2021 as null and void? ...OPP ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction and prohibitory injunction as prayed for? ...OPP iii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for not disclosing the cause of action against the defendants? ...OPD iv. Relief PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE: -
23. To prove its case, Sh. Sandeep Malhotra, AR for the plaintiff has stepped into the witness box and examined himself as PW1. In his testimony, PW1 has tendered his evidentiary affidavit being Ex.PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following documents:
i. Certified copy of the extract of the Board resolution dt. 28.10.2022 is Ex.PW1/1.
ii. Copy of the Marketing agreement dt. 20.12.2021 is marked as Mark A. iii. Copy of relevant extracts of the email communications along with Digitally signed certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW1/3(Colly). ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:32:54 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 7 of 15 iv. Office copy of legal notice along with postal receipt is Ex.PW1/4(colly).
24. PW-1 was duly cross-examined by learned counsel for the Defendants. During cross-examination, PW-1 was shown document Mark A, more specifically points A-1, A-2 and A-3, whereupon the witness identified the signatures of Dr. Pawan Gandhi. He further admitted that the rubber stamp appearing at point B-1 on document Mark A pertains to Gandhi Hospital.
25. PW-1 was also shown certain invoices (running pages 17 to
30), which were collectively marked as Mark PW-1/DX-1 (colly). He denied the existence of the said documents and stated that the names of the patients mentioned therein were never referred by TIIS India, asserting that they were direct patients of the Plaintiff Hospital.
26. PW-1 denied the suggestion that the Plaintiff had extended any threat to the Defendants through WhatsApp. He admitted that no police complaint was lodged by the Plaintiff regarding the alleged threats, and voluntarily stated that persons sent by the Defendants had visited the hospital, created a ruckus and attempted to enter the cabin of Dr. Pawan Gandhi, but were prevented from doing so by the hospital security staff
27. PW-1 further stated that he does not know the owner of the Defendant Company from the beginning and does not remember the names of the Directors of the Defendant Company. He stated that the Marketing Agreement dated 20.12.2021 was signed outside the Court premises. He further stated that the representative of the Defendant Company had provided the address of the company at the time of the first meeting, and that all three Directors along with the Manager of the Defendant Company were present during the first introduction. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. The cross-examination of PW-1 concluded on 05.10.2023. Thereafter, the Plaintiff's evidence was closed on the same date, as recorded in a separate statement. Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA DEFENDANT EVIDENCE: - SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:33:02 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 8 of 15
28. Despite being granted several opportunities, the Defendants failed to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence evidence was closed vide order dated 16.12.2024, and the matter was thereafter listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS: -
29. Final arguments advanced by both parties were heard on 15.12.2025.
30. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon judgment in case titled as Singapore Airlines Ltd; KLM Royal Dutch Airlines; British Airways PLC Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Delhi 2022 Lawsuit (SC) 1350 in support of her arguments.
31. The file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue- wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:
ISSUE NO. 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration thereby declaring the Marketing Agreement dated 17.12.2021 as null and void? (OPP)
32. The burden of proving this issue lies upon the Plaintiff. The central controversy in the present case concerns the legality and enforceability of the Marketing Agreement exeuted on 17.12.2021 and notorized on 20.12.2021 (Mark A). Though the said agreement is marked and not formally exhibited, its execution and existence have been admitted by both parties. Consequently, the document can be read in evidence.
33. As per the terms mentioned at clause (2) of the said agreement, the Defendants were required to provide patients to the Plaintiff Hospital and, in consideration thereof, the Plaintiff was required to pay 15% commission calculated on the total treatment charges received from such patients.
34. From the pleadings and evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the agreement was premised on the referral or procurement of patients for monetary consideration. The Defendants themselves have pleaded that Digitally signed by ANUBHAV Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 9 of 15 ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:33:23 +0530 they provided patients to the Plaintiff Hospital and raised invoices on that basis. Thus, the nature and object of the agreement stand clearly established.
35. The medical profession in India is not governed merely by principles of private contract, but is subject to statutory regulation and ethical standards. The Indian Medical Council, in exercise of powers under Section 20A read with Section 33(m) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, has framed the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Chapter 6 of the said Regulations enumerates unethical acts. Regulation 6.4 expressly prohibits payment or receipt of commission for patient referrals. Regulation 6.4.1 reads as under:
"A physician shall not give, solicit, or receive, nor shall he offer to give, solicit or receive, any gift, gratuity, commission or bonus in consideration of or return for the referring, recommending or procuring of any patient for medical, surgical or other treatment. A physician shall not directly or indirectly participate in or be a party to any act of division, transference, assignment, rebating, splitting or refunding of any fee for medical, surgical or other treatment."
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23207 of 2019 examined incentive-based arrangements in the healthcare sector and held that ethical regulations governing medical practice are binding in law. The Supreme Court observed that what is prohibited for the recipient is equally prohibited for the provider, and that courts cannot lend assistance to arrangements that violate medical ethics or public policy.
37. Although the Apex Laboratories judgment arose in the context of income tax law, the legal principle enunciated therein is of general application, namely that any agreement or arrangement which facilitates or encourages breach of medical ethics is prohibited by law and opposed to public policy.
38. This principle has also been consistently applied by High Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 10 of 15 SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:33:33 +0530 Courts. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. v. PCIT, WPO 398 of 2018, held that referral-linked commission arrangements violate Medical Council Regulations and are against public policy. Similarly, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Kap Scan & Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 445 of 2006, held that if demanding commission for patient referrals is impermissible, paying such commission is equally impermissible.
39. Applying the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the object of the Marketing Agreement exeuted on 17.12.2021 and notorized on 20.12.2021 is to commercialise patient referrals in return for commission. Such an arrangement directly undermines the ethical framework governing healthcare services. Permitting such an agreement would defeat statutory medical regulations and compromise public interest.
40. Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agreement is void if its object or consideration is forbidden by law, defeats the provisions of any law, or is opposed to public policy. The Marketing Agreement exeuted on 17.12.2021 and notorized on 20.12.2021 in question squarely falls within these prohibitions. The plea of partial performance or raising of invoices by the Defendants does not cure the inherent illegality, as a contract void under Section 23 is void ab initio and unenforceable from its inception.
41. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Marketing Agreement exeuted on 17.12.2021 and notorized on 20.12.2021 is prohibited by law, opposed to public policy, and void ab initio. The Plaintiff has successfully proved its entitlement to a declaration in this regard. Hence, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the Plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2 Digitally
signed by
ANUBHAV
ANUBHAV SHARMA
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22
16:33:41
+0530
injunction and prohibitory injunction as prayed for? (OPP) Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 11 of 15
42. The onus to prove this issue rests upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, servants and representatives from interfering in the smooth functioning of the plaintiff hospital, entering its premises, raising slogans, using abusive language and creating nuisance in or around the hospital premises.
43. In order to succeed in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff is required to establish the existence of a legal right; invasion or threat of invasion of such right; and likelihood of irreparable injury in case the injunction is refused.
44. In the present case, the plaintiff has led evidence through PW-1, who has categorically deposed regarding repeated acts of harassment, threats, creation of nuisance, attempted forceful entry into the hospital premises and interference in the smooth functioning of the hospital.
45. The defendants, despite being afforded sufficient opportunities, have failed to lead any evidence in support of their defence. Mere denial in the written statement, in the absence of evidence, does not discredit the plaintiff's version.
46. This Court has already held under Issue No. 1 that the Marketing Agreement between the parties is void ab initio and unenforceable in law. Once the agreement itself is declared illegal, the defendants cannot claim any lawful right to enter the hospital premises, interfere with its functioning or resort to coercive methods for recovery of alleged dues. Any such conduct is per se unlawful.
47. Hospitals are institutions providing essential public services. Any obstruction, intimidation or disturbance in their functioning poses a serious risk to public health and safety. Monetary compensation cannot adequately remedy such harm, and the balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of protecting the smooth functioning of the plaintiff hospital.
48. The plaintiff has also established a reasonable apprehension of Digitally signed by ANUBHAV Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 12 of 15 ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:33:51 +0530 recurrence of such acts, particularly in light of the prior incidents and the nature of the dispute. Therefore, refusal of injunctive relief would expose the plaintiff to irreparable injury and continuous harassment.
49. In view of the unrebutted evidence led by the plaintiff, the failure of the defendants to lead evidence, and the illegality of the underlying agreement, this Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a clear case for grant of permanent and prohibitory injunction. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for not disclosing any cause of action against the defendants? (OPD)
50. The onus to prove this issue lies upon the defendants. The defendants have contended that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is a settled principle of law that while examining whether a plaint discloses a cause of action, the Court is required to look only at the averments made in the plaint, and the defence raised in the written statement is wholly irrelevant at this stage. If the plaint discloses a bundle of facts which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to the relief claimed, the plaint cannot be rejected for want of cause of action.
51. In the present case, the plaint clearly sets out the material facts, including the execution of a Marketing Agreement between the parties; the allegation that the said agreement is illegal, void and opposed to public policy; assertions of harassment, threats, interference in the smooth functioning of the hospital and creation of nuisance by the Defendants and their agents; the pleading of legal injury along with a reasonable apprehension of recurrence; and the consequential prayers seeking declaratory as well as injunctive reliefs.
52. These averments, when taken at face value, unquestionably disclose a cause of action in favour of the Plaintiff. Whether the said Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.22 16:33:59 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 13 of 15 +0530 allegations are ultimately proved or not is a matter to be adjudicated upon after trial and cannot be examined at the stage of determining the existence of a cause of action.
53. Moreover, this Court has already held while deciding Issue No. 1 that the Marketing Agreement is void ab initio and unenforceable, and under Issue No. 2 that the plaintiff has proved interference and reasonable apprehension of continued nuisance. In view of these findings, the contention of the defendants that no cause of action exists is devoid of merit. The defendants have failed to lead any evidence to substantiate their plea. Mere bald assertions in the written statement, without proof, are insufficient to discharge the burden cast upon them. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaint discloses a clear and subsisting cause of action. The suit is not liable to be dismissed on this ground. Hence, Issue No. 3 is decided against the defendants.
ISSUE NO.4 Relief
54. In view of the findings recorded on Issue Nos. 1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in the following terms:
i. A decree of declaration is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants declaring that the Marketing Agreement dated 17.12.2021 executed between the parties is null and void ab initio and unenforceable in law.
ii. A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the defendants, their directors, agents, associates, servants, representatives and any other person acting on their behalf from:
o Interfering in any manner with the smooth functioning of the plaintiff hospital;
o Entering into the premises of the plaintiff hospital without Digitally signed lawful authority; by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.22 16:34:24 +0530 Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 14 of 15 o Raising slogans, using abusive or defamatory language, or creating nuisance in respect of the plaintiff hospital or its doctors.
iii. A decree of permanent injunction is further passed restraining the defendants, their agents, associates, servants, representatives and any other person acting on their behalf from creating any nuisance, obstruction or disturbance or from assembling within a radius of 200 meters from the premises of the plaintiff hospital.
55. No orders as to cost.
56. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
57. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Pronounced in open court: ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV
SHARMA
Dated: 22.12.2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22
16:34:31 +0530
(ANUBHAV SHARMA)
CJ-01 (SW)/ DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
Note:- This judgment contains 15 pages and all the pages have been checked Digitally signed by and signed by me. ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.22 16:34:38 +0530 (ANUBHAV SHARMA) CJ-01 (SW)/ DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI Civil suit no.1468/2022 judgment dt.22.12.2025 Page no. 15 of 15