Delhi District Court
Surya Roshni Limited vs Supreme Polytubes Limited on 7 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010075812023
CS (COMM.) No. 887/2023
CNR No. DLCT010075812023
Surya Roshni Limited
Padma Tower-1, Rajendra Place,
New Delhi 110008
Through Constituted Attorney
Mr. Sachin Rana ......Plaintiff
Versus
Supreme Polytubes Limited
Bagrian Road, Dhuri,
District: Sangrur,
Punjab 148024 ......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 01.06.2023
Date of Argument : 31.01.2026
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2026
JUDGMENT(Exparte)
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff company seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing and Digitally signed by passing off the Trademark and from indulging into RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 Unfair Trade Competition, as also for Rendition of 14:58:43 +0530 Accounts and Delivery up, damages etc. Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 1 of 30 ) BRIEF FACTS:
2. The case of the plaintiff company, as made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff company is one of the largest Indian Multinationals of all time; plaintiff company was incorporated on 17th October 1973, as private limited company and converted into Public Limited Company on 15th November, 1973 and come a long way since its incorporation back in 1973; vide Power of Attorney dated 20.10.2021, Mr. Sachin Rana, AR of the plaintiff company has duly been authorised to file the present suit against the defendant.
3. It is averred that plaintiff company is manufacturer of lighting products in India and is doing well not only in the domestic market but also well overseas over 50 countries; plaintiff company focus on working passionately with all latest technologies to make the lives of customers comfortable and delighted and as such is having a irreplaceable mark onto the minds and consideration of customers.
Digitally
4. signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL It is the case of the plaintiff company that KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:44 +0530 they manufactures ERW Steel Pipes and Tubes both Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 2 of 30 ) black and galvanized aluminum alloys, welding heads, GLS lamps, fluorescent tubes and tubular glass shells and at present engaged in manufacturing and marketing a wide range of products throughout India, including PVC pipes, Steel Pipes, Lighting Products such as LED lights and their fittings, LED Lamps, Street Lights, Flood Lights, FTL Fittings & Ballast Lights, GLS bulbs, FTL Tube lights, Night Bulbs, Electric Water Heaters, Room Heaters, Room Coolers, as well as other Home appliances like Irons, Mixers, Grinders, Juicers, Cooking Appliances like Gas Stoves, Electric Fans, and other high-quality products and accessories. ( herein after referred to as "goods") ; since inception, plaintiff company has emerged as one of the largest conglomerates in the steel segment and second largest in the realm of lighting; the products of the Electrical & lighting division are sold under the brand name "SURYA" & " " ( hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's trademark"); plaintiff's lighting division has international standard manufacturing Digitally facility at both its plants at Kashipur (UP) and signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
Malanpur (MP), ISO 9002 certified, fully integrated GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:40 +0530 plants produces ultra-modern lamps and their Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 3 of 30 ) components.
5. According to the plaintiff company, the plaintiff company has launched extensive advertising and promotional campaigns incurring huge expenses, over that past few decades, to strengthen the impression of the trade mark 'SURYA' in the minds of the consumers at large. The trademark 'SURYA' has been extensively promoted throughout India using various media channels, including print media, electronic media such as television networks, news papers, magazines, hoardings, promotional material etc. and as a result the trade mark 'SURYA' has acquired a high level of distinctiveness; plaintiff's goods are widely recognized all over the India and abroad.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that its trademarks are duly registered in the name of Plaintiff Company; some of Plaintiffs registrations for the trade mark 'SURYA' and 'SURYA' formative marks in Class 17 (which is the concerned trademark class for the Plaintiff company and Defendants identical goods) are mentioned Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL herein below:
KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:42
+0530
Surya Roshni Limited
Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 4 of 30 )
S. APPLICATI TRADEMARK CLAS DATE OF VALID UP
NO. ON NO. S APPLICATIO TO
N
1. 628629 SURYA 17 20/05/ 20/05/
(word) 1994 2024
P. V. PIPES & FITTINGS
2. 628631 PRAKASH SURYA 17 20/05/ 20/05/
(word) 1994 2024
P.V.C. PIPES & FITTINGS
3. 1393667 प्रकाश सूर्या 17 21/10/ 21/10/
(Device) 2005 2025
PVC PIPES AND FITTINGS
4. 1393668 सूर्या 17 21/10/ 21/10/
(Device) 2005 2025
PVC PIPES AND FITTINGS
5. 1756562 17 21/11/ 21/11/
2008 2028
GUTTA PERCHA, INDIA RUBBER, BALATA AND SUBSTITUTES, ARTICLES MADE FROM THESE SUBSTANCES AND NOT INCLUDED IN OTHER CLASSES; MATERIALS FOR PACKING, STOPPING OR INSULATING; ASBESTOS, MICA, AND THEIR PRODUCTS; HOSE PIPES (NON-METALLIC), ELECTRIC INSULATION MATERIAL, RUBBER HOSE, INSULATING PAPER AND GLOVES, ASBESTOS PAPER, STUFFING DEVICES.
7. It is averred that the plaintiff company holds various copyright registrations for the 'SURYA' and 'SURYA' formative marks /labels which was specifically designed and the said artistic lettering Digitally style being a unique design stands registered under signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: the Copyright Act, 1957 under Nos. A-55046/1998 GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:41 +0530 and A-129617/2019; the plaintiff company has been Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 5 of 30 ) leading extensive use and reputation of the said trademark in India as well as internationally; by virtue of long, continuous and extensive use all over the world and the promotion of the "SURYA" and "SURYA" formative marks of the Plaintiffs has earned substantial goodwill and reputation worldwide; the plaintiff's mark "SURYA" have emerged to be well-known marks amongst the public just as envisaged under the provisions of Section 2(1) (zg) and the relevant provisions of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and in view of the above, the plaintiff's trademark and formative marks are entitled to protection against any misappropriation by third parties; the plaintiff's trademarks is a valuable assets of the plaintiff company and the use of trademark/s, identical or similar to "SURYA" by any person other than the plaintiff company will give rise to confusion in the minds of the customers and would lead to deception amongst them.
8. It is stated that the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and trading of Digitally signed by PVC pipes and fittings and other accessories; RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:41 defendant is infringing the plaintiff's trade mark +0530 "SURYA" by using a deceptively similar/ identical Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 6 of 30 ) trademark as that of the plaintiff company.
9. It is further stated that on on 03/05/2023, the plaintiff company successfully located the defendants' premises where the infringing products were being manufactured, stored, and distributed under the impugned mark; the defendant's product with impugned mark/label of the plaintiff's trademark categorically reflects that the defendant has copied the Plaintiffs' trademark in entirety; the act of the defendant amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff's trademarks; as per online search conducted by the plaintiff company, it was found that the defendant does not have any registration or application pending for 'SURYA GOLD' or "SURYA" trade marks in class-17 for the impugned goods PVC pipes and fittings etc.; the adoption of a trademark deceptively similar/ identical to plaintiff's trademark by the defendant is mala fide, deliberate and a calculated move of the defendant aimed at causing misrepresentation and making illegal profits by associating itself with the plaintiff company.
10. It is further stated that the conduct of the Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL defendant poses an imminent threat to the business KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:40
+0530 of the plaintiff company and such act is done by the
Surya Roshni Limited
Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 7 of 30 )
defendant with a view to en-cash on the immense popularity of plaintiff's trademark; the defendant, by adoption of a mark deceptively similar/identical to plaintiff's in identical goods have attempted to derive unfair advantage and cause misrepresentation which bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the purchasing public which includes men, women and children who identify the trademarks "SURYA" only with the plaintiff company and no one else.
11. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that the use and adoption of the plaintiffs trademark by the defendant is not authorized and legitimate and amounts to willful infringement of the plaintiff's trademark within the meaning of Section 29 (1) to (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; defendant is inviting inquiries, offering for sale and selling its identical/ similar goods all over India, including markets across Delhi, using e-commerce platforms such as www.indiamart.com etc. and plaintiff company has strong apprehension that defendant is using the e-commerce platforms to sell of its Digitally signed by infringing goods and pass off its goods. Hence the RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:42 plaintiff company has filed the present suit against +0530 the defendant seeking relief of permanent Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 8 of 30 ) injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery-up and rendition of accounts etc.
12. Records would indicate that vide order dated 09.06.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this Court allowed the applications moved on behalf of the plaintiff company under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction and under order XXVI rule 9 and Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC seeking appointment of Local Commissioner, whereby "defendant was restrained from infringing the plaintiff's trademark "SURYA" and its formative marks containing essential element "SURYA" by manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, printing, offering for sale, displaying, advertising, promoting on the internet through any website or through any social media channels or through any physical store/locations or by any other mode or manner, any goods including PVC pipes, PVC pipe Fittings and/or any other identical, similar and/or allied and cognate goods under the mark "
SURYA GOLD" and/or any other trademark Digitally signed by identical and /or deceptively similar to the aforesaid RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:45 plaintiff's trademark and its numerous "SURYA"
+0530 based formative marks by using the essential Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 9 of 30 ) element"SURYA" and Ld. Local Commissioner was appointed with the directions to visit the premises of the defendant and to take in possession and prepare the inventory of the infringed goods/products, including all packaging, molds, brochures, business cards, business envelops, letter heads, labels, cartons, publicity material such as pamphlets, hoardings, signboards, stationary etc. that bear or incorporate the plaintiff's trademark or any other trademark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. Local Commissioner was further directed to seize the books of accounts/ledger, cash register, stock registers, invoices, books etc of the defendant.
13. Summons of the suit were also directed to be issued to the defendant by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 09.06.2023.
14. After executing the commission as directed, Local Commissioner submitted the report dated 03.07.2023, wherein it is stated that as per the directions, he along with Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company and the police officials of P.S Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Dhuri went to the premises bearing M/s Supreme KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:43
+0530 Polytubes Ltd. Bagrian Road, Dhuri, District
Surya Roshni Limited
Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 10 of 30 )
Sangrur, Punjab-148024; the care taker of the said factory called the proprietor of the defendant; search of the premises was carried out and the following items were found :-
i. various 3" inch 274 pieces grey colour pvc pipes of surya gold (1-274) ii. 4" inch 06 pieces grey colour pvc pipes (275-280) iii. Round Dye of surya gold , 5 pieces. iv. Round Dye of surya gold with sun logo (01) piece.
15. It is further stated that the above mentioned infringed items were seized, inventory was prepared and later on the seized items were released on superdari.
16. Records would indicate that on 1.8.2023, the defendant its appearance through Ld. Counsel and case came to be adjourned for 19.09.2023; on 19.9.2023, it was submitted that the defendant would file the written statement within three days and the case was adjourned for completion of pleadings and First Case Management Hearing.
17. Record would further indicate that on 09.10.2023, Ld. Counsel for the defendant appeared Digitally signed by and placed on record the judgment dated 18.08.2023 RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:41 passed by NCLT, Chandigarh, letter dated +0530 21.08.2023 and copy of public announcement but Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 11 of 30 ) thereafter defendant stopped appearing before the court and vide order dated 12.04.2024, defendant was proceed exparte and the matter came to be adjourned for exparte plaintiff evidence.
18. On 3.5.2024, it was stated on behalf of the the plaintiff company that since the defendant has already been proceeded exparte and no written statement has been filed, therefore, the plaintiff company does not wish to lead exparte plaintiff evidence.
19. Subsequently, on 1.8.2024, submissions were made by the Ld. Counsel of the plaintiff company that the plaintiff company is not pressing the relief of delivery up, damages and Rendition of Accounts and same may be treated as given up. He further submitted that the plaintiff company is pressing the relief as mentioned in clause 38(a) and 38 (b) only.
Statement of Ld. Counsel, in this regard, was recorded separately. Thus, only the prayers, as made under clause 38 (a) and 38 (b) are being considered.
20. Pertinent to mention that when the case was at Digitally signed by the stage of exparte final arguments, Ld. Counsel RAJESH RAJESH for the plaintiff pointed out that IRP has already KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:44 been appointed in respect of the defendant +0530 Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 12 of 30 ) company; a request was made to issue the notice to the IRP; accordingly, notice was issued to the IRP for 24.12.2024 and then for 28.1.2025.
21. On 28.01.2025, Ld. Counsel for the Resolution Professional appeared and filed the vakalatnama; on some subsequent date, it was stated on behalf of the Resolution Professional that in view of the bar created by section 14 of IBC, the present suit was not maintainable; an application u/s 151 CPC r/w section 20 and order 7 Rule 10, r/w section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 came to be moved on behalf of the Resolution Professional; plaintiff filed reply to the aforesaid application.
22. It is also pertinent to mention that in view of the campaign ' A Mediation for the Nation', the matter was sent to the mediation for exploring the possibility of mediation but it could not be settled in mediation.
23. Subsequently, Ld. Counsel who was appearing for the Resolution Professional stopped appearing before this Court for the reasons best Digitally signed by known to him; the aforesaid application moved on RAJESH RAJESH behalf of the Resolution Professional was disposed KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:42 off vide order dated 13.01.2026 observing that the +0530 Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 13 of 30 ) issue raised in the said application regarding the jurisdiction of this Court, shall be decided at the stage of the final disposal of the case.
24. On 13.1.2026, the case came to be adjourned for final arguments including on following issues:-
(a) Whether this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?
(b) What is the effect of the judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by the NCLT, Chandigarh?
(c) What is the effect of section 14 IBC on the present proceedings ?
25. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the bar created by section 14 IBC would not come in the way as the plaintiff company has filed the present suit for injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's trademark/copyrights over which the defendant company has no vested right. Regarding the jurisdiction, he submitted that the plaintiff company is registered and working at Rajendra Place, which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this court has the jurisdiction. On merits, it was stated that the plaintiff company has been able to Digitally signed by establish that it is the registered owner of the RAJESH RAJESH plaintiff's trademark and the defendant was found KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:42 infringing the same. He further submitted that the +0530 Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 14 of 30 ) report of the Ld. Court Commissioner has gone unchallenged which indicates that defendant was engaged in selling infringed products. Additionally, it was also argued that in terms of order VIII Rule 10 CPC, this court can pronounce the judgment against the defendant even without any evidence being led by the plaintiff company.
26. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company has relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:-
(a) SSMP Industries Ltd V. Perkan Food Processors Pvt. Ltd, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9334
(b) Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd v. Jyoti Structures Ltd, (2018) 246 DLT 485
(c) Canara Bank versus Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency NO.
147 of 2017 14.9.2017
27. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company. I have also gone through the judicial authorities as relied upon by the plaintiff company.
28. Before touching the merits of the case, the issues framed vide order dated 13.01.2026, are being taken up for decision.
(a) Whether this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR Date:29. The averments regarding jurisdiction have KUMAR GOEL GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:43 +0530 been made in para 34 of the plaint wherein it is Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 15 of 30 ) stated that the plaintiff company is carrying its business at Padma Tower-1, Rajendra Place, New Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the memo of parties, the same address has been shown by the plaintiff company. Even the Trademark registration certificate is having the same address of the plaintiff company. There is no contest to the present suit, therefore, there is nothing on record to reject the stand of the plaintiff company. Thus, cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, therefore, this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit.
(b) What is the effect of the judgment dated 18.08.2023 passed by the NCLT, Chandigarh?
(c) What is the effect of section 14 IBC on the present proceedings ?
30. Both these issues are interconnected, therefore, the same are being decided together.
31. The moratorium means a period wherein no judicial proceedings for recovery, enforcement of security interest, sale or transfer of assets, or termination of essential contracts can be instituted Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL or continued against the Corporate Debtor. Under KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:41
+0530 section 13(1)(a) of the Code, the adjudicating
Surya Roshni Limited
Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 16 of 30 )
authority is required to impose a moratorium for matters referred to in section 14 IBC. The purposes of the moratorium include keeping the corporate debtor's assets together during the insolvency resolution process and facilitating orderly completion of the processes envisaged during the insolvency resolution process and ensuring that the company may continue as a going concern while the creditors take a view on resolution of default and the moratorium on initiation and continuation of legal proceedings, including debt enforcement action ensures a stand-still period during which creditors cannot resort to individual enforcement action which may frustrate the object of the CIRP.
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swiss Ribbons Pvt.
Ltd. & anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) ibclaw.in 03 SC held that the moratorium imposed by Section 14 is in the interest of the corporate debtor itself, thereby preserving the assets of the corporate debtor during the resolution process. The timelines within which the resolution process is to take place again protects the corporate debtor's assets from further Digitally signed by dilution, and also protects all its creditors and RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:42 workers by seeing that the resolution process goes +0530 through as fast as possible so that another Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 17 of 30 ) management can, through its entrepreneurial skills, resuscitate the corporate debtor to achieve all these ends.
33. In another case of Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Vs. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, (2022) ibclaw.in 103 SC, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the IBC prescribes a moratorium on the initiation of CIRP proceedings and its effects. One of the purposes of the moratorium is to keep the assets of the Corporate Debtor together during the insolvency resolution process and to facilitate orderly completion of the processes envisaged under the statute. Such measures ensure the curtailing of parallel proceedings and reduce the possibility of conflicting outcomes in the process. From the February 2020 Report of the Insolvency Law Committee(para 8.2), it can be seen that one of the motivations of imposing a moratorium is for Section 14(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the IBC to form a shield that protects pecuniary attacks against the Corporate Debtor. This is done in order to provide the Digitally signed by Corporate Debtor with breathing space, to allow it RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:44 to continue as a going concern and rehabilitate +0530 itself. Any contrary interpretation would crack this Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 18 of 30 ) shield and would have adverse consequences on the objective sought to be achieved.
34. Reverting back to the case at hand the allegations against the defendant is that the defendant is infringing the plaintiff's trademark. It has come on the record that the plaintiff company is the registered owner of the plaintiff's trademark therefore, by no stretch of imagination the same can be treated as an asset of the corporate debtor (defendant herein). It cannot be a case of anyone that under section 14 of IBC the corporate debtor, who has no vested or registered right in the intellectual property, can be allowed to infringe the same and no injunctive order can be passed against such corporate debtor. I am of the opinion that the injunctive relief as claimed by the plaintiff company would not have any effect on the assets of the corporate debtor, as such. Thus, the judgment of NCLT, Chandigarh and consequently, the bar created u/s 14 IBC would not come in the way of the plaintiff company for seeking the injunctive reliefs by way of the present suit. Both the aforesaid Digitally signed by issues are disposed off accordingly. RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
35. 14:58:43 +0530 This takes me to the merit of the present case.
Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 19 of 30 ) Before proceeding further, I deem it appropriate to go through the relevant provision of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding denial by the defendant in a suit filed before Commercial Court. Order 8 rule 3 A (i) CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes, says that denial shall be in the manner provided in sub rules 2,3, 4 and 5 of this rule. Sub rule 2 says that the defendant in his written statement shall state which of the allegations in the particulars of the plaint he denies, which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the plaintiff to prove, and which allegations he admits.
36. Sub rule 3 says that where the defendant denies an allegation of fact in a plaint, he must state his reasons for doing so and if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the plaintiff, he must state his own version
37. Further, as per the second proviso attached to Order 8 Sub rule 5 (i), if the allegations of the fact in the plaint, are not denied in the manner provided under rule 3 A CPC of this order, the same shall be Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL taken to be admitted except as against a person KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:41
+0530 under disability. Meaning thereby, if the denial is
Surya Roshni Limited
Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 20 of 30 )
not in terms of order 8 rule 3 A CPC and sub rules, as noted herein above, then it shall be taken as an admission on the part of the defendant.
38. I may now consider the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC as also the provisions contained in the other Rule, namely Rule 10 CPC. These Rules are quoted below:
'Rule 9. Subsequent pleadings -- No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or counter- claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for more than 30 days for presenting the same.
Rule 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court
-- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up."
39. This Rule, namely Rule 10, was also amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, Digitally signed by 1976. Prior to its amendment, it was held in a RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:40 number of decisions passed by Hon'ble Supreme +0530 Court and various High Courts that the rule can be Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 21 of 30 ) invoked only in those situations where the Court has required the defendant to file the Written Statement in terms of Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC. A few Hon'ble High Courts had taken the view that this Rule would be applicable even to those cases where a Written Statement was required to be filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC. The conflict of decisions has been set at rest by providing specifically under this rule that where a party from whom a Written Statement is required either under Rule 1 or Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Rule 10 thus governs both the situations where a Written Statement is required under Rule 1 of Order 8 as also where it has been demanded under Rule.
40. In both the situations, if the Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant, it will be open to the Court to pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. It is to be noticed that if the Written Statement is Digitally signed by not filed, the Court is required to pronounce RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:44 judgment against the defendant. The words "against +0530 him" are to be found in Rule 10 of Order 9 which Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 22 of 30 ) obviously means that the judgment will be pronounced against the defendant. This rule also gives a discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or "make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit." These words are of immense significance, inasmuch as they give a discretion to the Court not to pronounce judgment against the defendant and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit.
41. There are thus, in addition to the passing of summary judgment under order 13 A CPC, two separate and distinct provisions under which the Court can pronounce judgment on the failure of the defendant to file Written Statement. The failure may be either under Order 8 Rule 5(2) CPC under which the Court may either pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts set out in the plaint or require the plaintiff to prove any such fact; or the failure may be under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC under which the Court is required to pronounce judgment against the defendant or to pass such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.
Digitally signed by
42.GOEL RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR Here it is relevant to refer the observations of KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:43 +0530 Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Balraj Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 23 of 30 ) Taneja and Another Vs Sunil Madan and Anr ,(1999) 8SCC 396, wherein it was held:-
"29. As pointed out earlier, the Court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his Written Statement nor the Court should proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the Court. In a case, specially where a Written Statement has not been filed by the defendant, the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of Court's satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the Court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the Written Statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved" used in sub- rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used in Rule 10 of Order 8."
43. In another case of ML Brother LLP vs Mahesh Kumar Bhuralal Tanna, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1452, Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR GOEL Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:-
Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:42
+0530 14. Furthermore, in view of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the judgment in Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 24 of 30 ) Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estate 2013 (54) PTC 419 (Del) this Court is of the opinion that there is no need for filing further evidence in the present matter. The relevant observations in Satya Infrastructure (supra) read as under:
"4. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.
44. Applying these tests to the instant case, there will be no difficulty in arriving at a conclusion that the instant case succeeds in establishing on the basis of the pleadings and documents on record that plaintiff company is registered owner of its trademark/copyright and the defendant was found engaged in storing and selling the infringing material having the plaintiff's trademark/logo/trade Digitally signed by dress/copyright. Here I may further refer to few RAJESH RAJESH judgments on the subject as to how infringement of KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:40 intellectual property right is to be dealt with. +0530 Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 25 of 30 )
45. In the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del) regarding as to how infringement of trade mark is to be seen, Hon'ble High Court held as under:-
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 sequetur 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 Digitally it would be numbered by persons possessed of an signed by RAJESH RAJESH average memory with its usual imperfection or with its usual imperfection or that its essential KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:58:40 +0530 particulars or the distinguishing or essential feature has been copied (ILR 197 (II) Delhi 225 Jagan Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 26 of 30 ) Nath Prem Nath v. Bhartiya Dhoop Karvalaya Para- 7).
46. Pertinent to note the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made in the case of Puma Se Versus Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.,(2024) 308 DLT 260), which are as under:
"It is essential to bear in mind that the protection afforded in respect of a trademark is both to the public as well as the proprietor of the trademark. The primary function of a trademark is to serve as a source identifier of the goods and services. It is necessary for protection of the public that when they purchase goods and services associated with the trademark, they are not deceived in any manner in accepting goods and services from a source other than that associated with the trademark. Any use of a mark, which is likely to confuse or deceive the user is impermissible and is actionable. In addition to the primary function of serving as a source identifier, the trademark also has an investment function, that is, to preserve the value of investment of the proprietor in popularising the trademark and the attendant goodwill. Extended protection is also afforded to this function of the trademark, to ensure that the value of the trademark is not diluted or compromised, either by blurring or by tarnishment, by use of an identical or deceptively similar mark even though there is no likelihood of any confusion."
47. That being so, I am of the view that a balance must be struck, and it would be essential to anchor the protection available to trademarks based on the core functions of a trademark; both for the purpose Digitally of protecting the public as well as preserving the signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL investment value of the trademark which are 2026.02.09 14:58:44 +0530 Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 27 of 30 ) distinctive and have been in extensive and continuous use and thereby have acquired tremendous and unique reputation and goodwill.
48. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company, the report given by the Ld. Local Commissioner also supports the case as set up by the plaintiff company. As per the said report around 274 pieces of various 3" inch grey colour PVC pipes of surya gold, 6 pieces of 4" inch grey colour PVC pipes and 5 pieces of Round Dye of surya gold and 1 piece of Round Dye of surya gold with sun logo, were seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner. The report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit if it is not challenged by the opposite party. The settled legal position is that the Local Commissioner's report can be read in evidence in terms of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC. ( M L Brother LLP v. Mahesh Kumar Bhrualal Tanna [CS(COMM) 126/2022], Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal 2018 IAD (Delhi) 622, Vinod Goel v. Mahesh Yadav [RFA 2022/DHC/004806 CS (COMM) 413/2021 Page 9 of 14 598/2016 decided on 23rd May, 2018) .
Digitally
signed by
RAJESH RAJESH
KUMAR 49.
KUMAR GOEL
Date: In the present case, the defendant has chosen
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:43
+0530
not to contest the present suit before this court Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 28 of 30 ) despite the service. There is no challenge to the report given by the Ld. Local Commissioner, therefore, the said report and the contents therein can be relied upon by this court as evidence to assess the even damages as the same has gone unchallenged.
50. As stated herein above, the plaintiff company has been able to establish that defendant was found storing and selling the infringed material having the deceptively similar trademark belonging to the plaintiff company and by adoption of the identical mark and its logo as that of plaintiff company in respect of identical goods, an attempt has been made to drive unfair advantage which is bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the consumers and the reputation and the goodwill of the plaintiff company would be at stake. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the plaintiff company is also entitled to protection with respect to the said trademark.
51. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of my Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09
14:58:44
+0530 the plaintiff company has succeeded in proving that
Surya Roshni Limited
Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 29 of 30 )
the defendant was stocking, distributing and selling impugned goods having the impugned trade mark of the plaintiff company. Hence, the trademark and the copy right of the plaintiff company needs to be protected.
RELIEF
52. In view of my aforesaid discussions, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant Supreme Polytubes Limited in terms of the prayers made under paragraph 38 (a) and 38 (b) of the plaint.
53. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff company.
54. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
55. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. RAJESH by Digitally signed RAJESH KUMAR GOEL KUMAR Date:
GOEL 2026.02.09 14:59:25 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 07.2.2026 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 07.2.2026 (digitally signed on 09.02.2026) Surya Roshni Limited Vs Supreme Polytubes Limited Date of Judgment 07.02.2026 (page no. 30 of 30 )