Delhi District Court
Brand Protectors India Pvt Ltd vs Kent Ro Systems Ltd on 18 October, 2025
THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI:
DISTRICT JUDGE COMMERCIAL COURT 03 - SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS DJ 592/2019
In the matter of :-
Brand Protectors India Pvt Ltd
Through Its Director Dhirendra Singh
Director,
R/o 122, Sector-15,
Part-I, Gurgaon
Haryana-122001 ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Kent RO Systems Ltd.
Through Its Directors
H-35, South Extension Part-I
Kidwai Nagar
New Delhi-110049 ....Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 16.07.2019
Date of reserving judgment : 10.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.10.2025
CS DJ 592/19
BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 1/33
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit for recovery in sum of Rs. 3,87,874/- along with 18% interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
PLAINT
2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a registered company engaged in the business of providing IP Rights investigation and brand protection services to various national and international companies. In and around the year 2016, Kent RO Systems Pvt Ltd and its Directors, through various meetings, got into an understanding with the plaintiff company. As per this understanding, plaintiff company was to carryout investigations, identifying counterfeiting parties, preparing reports, filing criminal complaints, pursuing the same with the police stations concerned etc. Despite repeated requests, no formal written agreement was executed in this respect. However, the defendant and its Directors and officials kept giving work to the plaintiff throughout 2016-17 through emails and telephonically. The plaintiff shared invoices through emails as well as hard copies in respect of the work done by them and were delivered to the defendant. The defendant made payments for the work undertaken by the plaintiff. Thus, not only the above referred emails but also the invoices constitute contract between the parties to this suit. It is the case of the CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 2/33 plaintiff that as per the statement of account maintained by it, a balance amount in sum of Rs. 3,87,874/- is outstanding against the defendant. Despite repeated requests, the defendant has failed to regularize their account and to make the outstanding payment. It is submitted that the unpaid invoices pertain to the investigations conducted by the plaintiff in respect of the infringers/counterfeiters, namely, (i) M/s Euroforbes Water Tech, Delhi (ii) M/s Acqua Nectar Marketing, Delhi, (iii) Impulse Sales, Delhi, (iv) www.robodycover.com Delhi, (v) M/s Acqua Enterprises, Faridabad, and (vi) unnamed counterfeiters at Kolkata.
3. Further the case of the plaintiff that on the basis of the material collected by the plaintiff's teams, the defendant filed civil suits against the counterfeiters in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also obtained favourable injunctions.
4. The plaintiff has prayed for recovery of Rs. 3,87,874/- against the defendant along with interest @ 18% per annum from the due date till the date of filing of the present suit and pendentelite interest @ 18% per annum till its realisation.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
5. In its WS, the defendant has denied the allegations of the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that relying on the assurances made by the plaintiff, it was engaged by the defendant for conducting CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 3/33 investigation for protection of intellectual property rights of the defendant and informing the defendant accordingly. It is submitted that as part of the investigation, plaintiff was required to gather evidentiary material and information about persons involved in infringement /counterfeiting of the defendant's intellectual property rights /copyright and assisting the defendant in carrying out police raids. All the relevant details of infringement like photographs, quantity of infringing material and persons involved in infringement were to be provided to the defendant before initiating any action. Providing of these details prior to taking action was necessary so that the defendant company could process and analyse the given information for assessment and checking any prior involvement of the infringer.
6. It is the defence of the defendant that initially, the plaintiff undertook investigation work only after following the above said procedure, however, later on, it started taking action on its own without any consultation and knowledge to the defendant company. It is submitted that plaintiff was required to submit certain documents along with their invoice, such as, (i) prior approval of defendant company for investigation, (ii) photographs of material of infringing product, (iii) copy of FIR, and (iv) detailed report of investigation undertaken. Only when these documents were filed along with the invoice that the said invoice was treated as having become due for payment. Regarding the two invoices bearing no. 65 and 66 respectively both dated 21.12.2017, it has CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 4/33 been submitted that the defendant engaged the plaintiff for investigation into the activities of Mahendra Sharma, NIT, Faridabad. Though, Sh. Mahendra Sharma was found in possession of products that infringe registered design of the defendant, no criminal case was made out and, therefore, defendant did not request the plaintiff for any further service on the matter. It is further submitted that invoices no. 55 and 63 were waived off by the plaintiff itself.
7. It is further submitted by the defendant in its WS that Sh. Surya Narayan Pati is not one of the Directors of the defendant company but legal head with whom meetings with plaintiff were held. It has been denied that meetings of the plaintiff took place with all the Directors of the defendant. It is further submitted that the raids conducted by the plaintiff in respect of which the invoices in question have been raised were never authorized by the defendant. Further, payments were made to the plaintiff on case to case basis.
REPLICATION
8. In its replication, the plaintiff denied the allegations of the defendant and reiterated its stand in its plaint. It is submitted that the plaintiff requested the defendant several times to make payment of the outstanding amount, however, the defendant company did not raise any objection of identical or similar nature in any of its past communications CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 5/33 with the plaintiff company. It is submitted that false reasons are being created by the defendant to evade its liability.
9. The affidavit of admission/denial of defendant's documents was filed by the plaintiff on 18.04.2023. No affidavit of admission/denial of plaintiff's document was filed by the defendant.
ISSUES
10. Vide Order dated 12.07.2023, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,87,874/- ? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff duly rendered its services, discharged its duties and acted as per the instructions of the defendant? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff acted beyond its scope and instructions? OPD
4. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
11. Plaintiff examined Sh. Dhirendra Singh, Director of the plaintiff company as PW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.PW1/A. He has proved various documents. Ex.PW1/1 is the Resolution authorizing him to file the present suit. Ex.PW1/2 (colly) are the raid reports prepared by the plaintiff and bill sample of counterfeiter. PW1/3 (colly) are the CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 6/33 original pending invoices. Ex.PW1/4 (colly) are the reminder emails regarding pending dues and emails regarding work undertaken by the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/5 (colly) are copy of GST/Sales Tax returns. Ex.PW1.6 (colly) are the Investigation Reports for the 4 Delhi entities. Ex.PW1/7 (colly) are criminal complaints filed by the plaintiff. Ex.PW1/8 (colly) are various Order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE
12. Defendant examined Sh. Surya Narayan Pati, AR of defendant company as DW1. His affidavit in evidence is Ex.DW1/A. He has proved copy of Board Resolution dated 01.01.2014 as Ex.DW1/1 and copy of emails dated 09.08.2016 and 26.09.2017 as Ex.DW1/2 (Colly).
13. I have heard the detailed final arguments of both the parties and have perused the record carefully including case laws and the written submissions.
DISCUSSION
14. My issue wise findings are as follows:
ISSUE Nos. 2 and 3"2. Whether the plaintiff duly rendered its services, discharged its duties and acted as per the instructions of the defendant? OPP CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 7/33
3. Whether the plaintiff acted beyond its scope and instructions? OPD"
15. The present suit pertains to five invoices which are as follows:
Sr. No. Invoice No. Purpose Location of Amount & Date raid/investigation/pretext purchase
1. 55 dated Pretext Rs. 57,500/-
23.09.2016 purchase (i) M/s Eurofobes, Delhi
(ii) M/s Impulse Sales, Delhi
2. 63 dated Investigation & (i) Eurofobes Watertech, Rs. 35,650/-
01.10.2016 Pretext Ganesh Nagar, Delhi purchase (ii) Impulse Sales, Nangloi, Delhi
3. 68 dated Investigation (i) M/s Aqua Nectar Rs. 57,500/-
06.10.2016 Marketing, Delhi
(ii) M/s www.robodycover.com, Delhi
4. 65 dated Investigation, (i) Investigation & Raid- Rs. 2,36,000/-
21.12.2017 Raid, Criminal Faridabad
Complaints DD No. 21 dt 09.12.2017 PS
Kotwali NIT-I, Faridabad
5. 66 dated Pretext (i) Samples 03 Duplicate Rs. 1,224/-
21.12.2017 purchase Grand Plus Cabinets
M/s Aqua Enterprises, NIT,
Faridabad
16. The defendant has denied the liability to pay any of the above said bills. Regarding bill nos. 65 and 66, its stand is that one Sh. Mahendra Sharma at the location at NIT, Faridabad was found in CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 8/33 possession of products that infringed registered design of defendant but no criminal case was made out. It was alleged that plaintiff still went ahead and attempted to lodge criminal case without approval only to extract money from defendant. Ld. Counsel for defendant contended that the payment for criminal raid was more than that of civil raid. It is submitted that defendant exceeded his instructions. Regarding invoices nos. 55 and 63, the contention of the defendant is that these bills were waived off by the plaintiff itself. Contrary to its stand in written statement, the defendant put the following question to PW1 during cross- examination"
"Q59. Kindly confirm whether the payment for the invoice Nos. BPIPL/55/2016-17 and BPIPL/63/2016-17 have been cleared by the Defendant Company or not?
Ans. It is a matter of record."
17. So far as issues under consideration are concerned, the entire gamut of final arguments and evidence recorded revolved around the question whether or not approval of defendant before initiating action was required in each case.
18. In its WS, the defendant has explained the procedure of conducting requisite investigations by the plaintiff and of raising the invoices. It has been submitted as follows in the WS:
"PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS:
.
.
.CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 9/33
3. It is submitted that as part of investigation, Plaintiff was required to gather sufficient evidentiary material and information about persons involved in infringement/counterfeiting of Defendant's intellectual property rights exclusively for copyright infringement and assisting Defendant carrying out police raids. The plaintiff was further required to inform the defendant with all the relevant details of infringement like photographs, quantity of infringing material/products and persons involved in infringement before initiating any action. The informing Defendant was necessary so that the defendant company could process and analyse the given information for assessment, and checking any prior involvement of the infringer. Only after this process, Plaintiff could initiate suitable action.
.
.
.
5. It is also submitted that the dealing with the plaintiff was from case to case basis and there was no running account with Defendant. The plaintiff was required to submit following documents along with their invoice of any action taken by him (i) prior approval for investigation by Defendant Company, (ii) photographs of material of infringing product, (iii) copy of FIR, (iv) detailed report of investigation undertaken. The invoice of plaintiff was considered by defendants as correct and complete once the annexures as aforementioned were attached to the Invoice by the Plaintiff and accordingly, it was then could be treated as having become due for payment.
6. In the cases of invoices bearing no.
BPIPL/65/2017-18 & BPIPL/66/2017-18 both dated 21.12.2017, the Defendant engaged Plaintiff for investigation into activities of Mahendra Sharma, NIT Faridabad. It was found that Mr. Sharma was in possession of products that infringe CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 10/33 registered Design No. 219309 of Defendant;
however, as no criminal case was made out, hence, unlike other cases, Defendant did not request Plaintiff for any further services on this matter. However, to extract money from Defendant, Plaintiff went ahead and attempted to file a criminal complaint and raised an invoice to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant Company cannot be made liable to pay for the same.
7. That it is further submitted that the plaintiff was habitual of raising frivolous invoices and sometimes used to charge amount which was never agreed to be paid and after protest from the defendant, the plaintiff used to waived of those charges. The invoices BPIPL/55/2116-17 & BPIPL/63/2016-17 are examples of such invoices which were waived off by the plaintiff himself."
19. In his affidavit in evidence, the defendant has mentioned as follows:
"3. I state that as part of investigation, Plaintiff was required to gather sufficient evidentiary material and information about persons involved in infringement/counterfeiting of Defendant's intellectual property rights exclusively for copyright infringement and assisting Defendant in carrying out legal recourses. That the Plaintiff as part of investigation/assignment was required to inform the Defendant with all the relevant details of infringement like photographs, quantity of infringing material/products and persons involved in infringement before initiating any action. These details and information were necessary so that the defendant company could process and analyze the given information for assessment and checking any prior and take defendant could initiate suitable action.CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 11/33
4. I state that the Plaintiff was very well aware of this fact, and it initially undertook investigation work only after following the aforesaid procedure. A printout of emails dated 09.08.2016 and 26.09.2017 has already been filed in the present suit and I crave leave to exhibit the same as Exhibit DW-2 (Colly). However, later on, the Plaintiff, with intentions to deceive and take undue advantage of the Defendant Company, started taking actions on his own without any consultation and knowledge to the defendant company."
Civil Raid & Criminal Raid
20. During the cross-examination of PW1, the defendant introduced the difference in civil raids and criminal raids. It was introduced to buttress the contention that plaintiff deliberately converted a civil raid (in respect of invoice no. 65) into a criminal raid without prior approval to extract higher fee from the defendant. During the course of final arguments, it was explained by Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the civil raid referred to those cases where registration of FIR was not required such as cases of design infringement under the Design Act, 2000. Ld. Counsel for for plaintiff objected to this argument on the ground that this argument was beyond pleadings. However, the defendant has specifically mentioned in his written statement about invoices no. 65 and 66 that Sh. Mahendra Sharma at NIT, Faridabad location was found in possession of products that infringed registered Design No. 219309 of defendant and no criminal case was made out.
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 12/3321. To establish whether or not there were two different kinds of raids i.e. civil and criminal raids, I shall refer to the relevant part of the cross-examination of PW1 which is as follows:
"Q28. What documents were required for taking approval for civil raids?
Ans. We were not engaged to carryout civil raids.
Q29. What documents were required for taking approval for criminal raids?
Ans. Letter of authority, training certificate."
22. PW1 was also asked if he could produce the record confirming whether he had filed any criminal case / complaint in relation to design infringement of goods as per his investigation for Kent RO System. An objection was raised by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the question was irrelevant. However, this question was relevant to bring out the difference between the civil raids and the criminal raids and in view of the response of PW1 that the plaintiff was not engaged to carryout civil raids. PW1 responded by saying that he would try to trace out such criminal case /complaint case. Thereafter following question was put to PW1 by Ld. Counsel for defendant:
"Q53. In light of your response to the question No. 50 have you brought requisite records?
Ans. From our records pertaining to Faridabad case I have brought my whatsapp chat dated 09.12.2017 with Surya Narayan Pati (S.N. Pati) CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 13/33 Legal Head of Kent RO Systems Ltd., which is marked as Mark B-1/1 (described 05 pages) wherein the chat at 01:11 pm, he was updated about the raid at the first premises of M/s Aqua Enterprises in NIT Faridabad. At 01:12 pm he was updated about the raid at the second premises of M/s Aqua Enterprises in Sector-18, Faridabad and pictures of raid were shared. Thereafter at 01:14 pm S.N. Pati messaged me back "please share the detail to Vivek for press". At 01:34 pm a further go ahead in a message from S.N. Pati to raid the third location of M/s Aqua Enterprises. Then at 02:37 pm, I received the message from S.N. Pati "Please coordinate with Vivek we cannot afford non publicize the raid. Possibly give an interview like you did in Gurgaon raid" and on 10.12.2017 at 09:21 am, I received the message from S. N. Pati, "sharing press reporting" and whatsapp chat between me and Ms. Nisha Khanna from P.R. Agency of Kent RO Systems Ltd which is marked as Mark B-1/2 (01 page), wherein at 06:18 pm on 09.12.2017, the date of raid she informed me "I told Mr. S.N. Pati that it will be covered through press release".
.
.
.
Q64. It is also correct to suggest that since only design infringement issue was involved in the matter of Mahinder Sharma, therefore, no criminal proceedings was required in the said matter?
Ans. It is incorrect."
Above mentioned deposition of PW1 does not answer the question of Ld. Counsel for defendant. PW1 could not show that FIR in a case of design infringement was ever got registered. It fortifies the argument of Ld. CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 14/33 Counsel for defendant that cases involving infringement of designs did not incur criminal action /raid and involved civil action/raids.
23. Now I shall refer to Ex.PW1/8 (Colly) which are various Orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Civil Suits (Commercial) filed by Kent RO Systems against the infringers of its registered designs and trade marks. Regarding these documents, following questions were put to PW1:
"Q67. What was plaintiff's role/contribution in relation to cases exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 (Colly) wherein defendant herein have approached Hon'ble High Court?
Ans. The plaintiff's role relation to these cases was to investigat the said infringers, provide actionable intelligence, sample purchases where required, place trap orders on directions of the defendant company and provide logistic ground support during civil raids, search and seizure of counterfeit products of defendant company.
Q68. It is correct that no criminal raids were conducted in relation to Ex.PW1/8 by the plaintiff company?
Ans. It is correct."
24. PW1 also admitted that the issue mentioned in raid reports was of infringement of design of the RO bodies/cabinets. He deposed as follows:
"Q36. Please refer to Ex.PW1/2 (Colly) (page no.
72) in light of said document (your raid report) is it correct to state that issue was in relation to fake CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 15/33 Grand Plus bodies/cabinets and designee of the said cabinets?
Ans. It is correct to state that the issue of infringement pertained to duplicate/ fake Kent RO Grand Plus bodies/cabinets."
The deposition of PW1, thus, falsifies the earlier stand of PW1 that plaintiff was not engaged to carryout civil raids.
25. I shall also consider plaintiff's documents Ex.PW1/6 (colly), Ex.PW1/7 and Ex.PW1/8 (colly). Ex.PW1/6 (colly) are the raid reports in respect of M/S AQUA NECTAR MARKETING, M/S IMPULSE SALES and ROBODYCOVER.COM. As per the raid reports, RO Bodies similar in design to Kent Grand Plus and Kent Pearl were found at M/s Aqua Nectar Marketing. RO Bodies similar to Kent designs were found at M/s Impulse Sales. ROBODYCOVER.COM was found manufacturing RO Machine covers for all prominent RO Models. It is not plaintiff's case that any FIR was registered or police raid conducted in these cases. Ex.PW1/7 is (i) copy of FIR No. 136 dated 02.03.2017 PS Faridabad Central u/s 420 IPC and 63 of the Copyright Act against one Lakshmi Narayan and Mohd. Intiyaz who were found transporting duplicate ROs of Kent Company with duplicate Kent stickers and (ii) A Nakal Rapat Roznamcha dated 09.12.2017 (DD No. 21 pertaining to invoice no. 65) is in respect of Aqua Enterprises shop where RO bodies similar to the Kent RO bodies were found. Ex.PW1/8 (colly) are various Order of Hon'ble CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 16/33 High Court of Delhi in cases of trade mark and design infringement. These Orders are not in respect of the invoices which are subject matter of present suit. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has pointed out that these documents of the plaintiff show that no FIR was registered in cases of design infringement and FIR was registered only where there was copyright violation as section 63 of the Copyright Act is a penal provision punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 6 months but which may extend to 3 years and with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. In other cases of design infringement, only appropriate civil suits were filed.
26. During the course of cross-examination of DW1, following questions were put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff:
"Q19. Are you aware about the difference between a civil raid and criminal raid carried out by the Plaintiff Company?
Ans. Yes.
Objection by the Ld. Counsel for Defendant that question is vague.
LC Observation: It is left open for the decision of Court.
Q20. What is involved in civil raid and what is involved in criminal raid?
Ans. In both the cases, pre-raid investigation report is required and need to be submitted to Defendant Company by the Plaintiff Company for approval to proceed further.CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 17/33
Q21. I put it to you again what is involved in civil raid and what is involved in criminal raid?
Ans. In civil raid, pre-raid investigation report and collection of evidence articles is required to take appropriate legal action in the Court of Law, whereas in criminal raids, after approval of pre- raid investigation report, enforcement action by police has to be carried out by the Investigation Agency and to follow up with State/ police till finalization of criminal proceedings initiated against the counterfeiter.
Q22. Was the amount of money paid by the Defendant Company to the Plaintiff Company different for a civil raid and criminal raid?
Ans. Yes.
Q23. Which raid was paid more or higher between civil and criminal?
Ans. Criminal."
27. The above mentioned cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as also the discussion in the preceding paragraphs show that there is no dispute to the fact that there were two different kinds of raids conducted by the plaintiff i.e. civil raid and criminal raid.
Approvals CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 18/33
28. Now I shall come back to the core question whether or not any prior approval was required by the plaintiff for conducting the civil as well as criminal raids. Defendant has filed emails dated 26.09.2017 and 09.08.2016 along with affidavit u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at the time of filing the written statement. These emails are Ex.DW1/2. Vide email dated 09.08.2016, the plaintiff sent PDF files containing pictures of duplicate RO Machines being sold in Bhatinda, Faridkot, Moga and Sangrur in Punjab and raid approval was sought for these locations. Vide email dated 26.09.2017 at 11:38 AM, plaintiff has sought approval of the defendant for conducting a raid in Mansa, Punjab where a seizure of 10 to 15 fake machines was expected. Approval was granted by defendant vide email dated 26.09.2017 at 12:15 PM. Regarding these emails, following question was put to PW1:
"Q27. If you had standing instructions from the defendant company then why did you sought instructions/approval from defendant company vide your email dated 09.08.2016 addressed to defendant company?
Ans. This particular email pertained to counterfeiters in very small towns like Bhatinda, Faridkot, Moga and Sangrur."
29. In his 'rejoinder written submissions', plaintiff has submitted on the above-said deposition that since plaintiff had sought instructions to carryout raid in small towns, seeking approval was a pre-requisite to carryout raids. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has further submitted in these written submissions that the plaintiff has clarified that because the said CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 19/33 raids would be in small towns where the expense incurred for criminal raid might exceed the extent of damage caused to the brand of Defendant by infringement, hence, the plaintiff sought a bonafide clarification. This submission of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is contrary to record. In reply to the above mentioned question nos. 27 to 29, PW1 has nowhere said that approval was needed as expense incurred in conducting raid in small towns was more than the damage caused to the defendant on account of infringement. The PW1 was further asked what documents were required for taking approval for criminal raids. He responded by saying that letter of authority and training certificate were required.
30. PW1 was also confronted with Mark A-4/4 (colly) which is email communication between the parties. The email dated 09.08.2016 at 10:09 PM shows that it pertains to 'Kent Raid Action Leads: Punjab' and mentions requirement of necessary approval for initiating action. The email dated 10.10.2016 shows that it pertains to 'Pretext/sample purchase Aqua Nectar Marketing: Delhi'. Vide this email, the plaintiff has sought approval for the expenses and pretext purchase. It also mentions that the trap order would be placed after a gap of a day. The plaintiff objected to these emails saying that they did not constitute the complete trail of emails and were selectively printed emails. These emails, however, were not disputed by PW1. He also did not explain in what context was approval sought from the defendant. It is also clear that approval was CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 20/33 sought not only for locations at small towns but also for locations in Delhi.
31. Emails Ex.DW1/2 as also Mark A-4/4 (colly) corroborate the deposition of DW1 in his cross-examination that in criminal raids as well as civil raids, the raid investigation report was required to be submitted by the plaintiff for obtaining approval for proceeding further.
32. Now I shall refer to Mark B-1 produced by PW1 during his own cross-examination. It is printout of chats dated 09.12.2017, 10.12.2017, 12.12.2017 and 15.12.2017 between Sh. Dhirendra, AR of the plaintiff and Sh. S.N. Pati, AR of the defendant company. This chat has been filed by the plaintiff to show that Sh. S.N. Pati who was Legal Head of Kent RO System (Defendant) was very well aware of the raids conducted at NIT, Faridabad with the assistance of Police vide DD No. 21 dated 09.12.2017 PS Kotwali, Faridabad. I shall also refer to Mark A-5/5 which is chat dated 10.12.2017 put to PW1 by the defendant during cross- examination. This chat is, in fact, also part of Mark B-1. I shall, therefore, read the chats Mark B-1 in evidence. The messages at 1:11 PM show that this chat pertains to location at NIT, Faridabad and location at Sector 18, Faridabad. The message at 1:14 PM on 09.12.2017 is interesting. It was posted by Sh. Dhirendra Singh to Sh. S.N. Pati during the above mentioned chats. He has specifically written as follows:
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 21/33"Will need to speak to CMD for pushing further. Kindly organize. Need some approvals from him."
The above said message shows that the plaintiff was aware of requirement of approval from CMD of the defendant company. The plaintiff has not explained what kind of approvals was he referring to in the above said message. Further, in messages at 1:16 PM, 1:34 PM, 2:31 PM and 2:33 PM, the plaintiff is seen saying that they could possibly smash the origins of the supply chain with the second raid. Sh. S.N. Pati has specifically responded by saying, "Pl go ahead." At this stage, I will also refer to Ex.DW1/2 which are emails sent by Sh. Dhirendra Singh to Sh. S.N. Pati where he has requested for approval of raids at various locations in Punjab. There is nothing to show that approvals were granted by Sh. S.N. Pati, Legal Head of defendant. As per plaintiff's own document, he was aware that approvals were required to come from the CMD of the defendant company. It also lends credence to the contention of the defendant that in initiating criminal /police action against Sh. Mahendra Sharma at NIT, Faridabad location, the plaintiff exceeded the instructions and acted without necessary approval.
33. At this stage, I shall again revert to the written statement of the defendant. In para 3 of the preliminary submissions in the WS, the defendant has submitted that plaintiff was required to gather sufficient evidentiary material and information about persons involved in infringement/counterfeiting of defendants intellectual property rights CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 22/33 exclusively for copyright infringement and assisting the defendant in carrying out police raids. Before initiating any action, however, the plaintiff was required to inform the defendant with all the relevant details of infringement like photographs, quantity of infringing material/products and persons involved. It has been submitted that informing the defendant was necessary so that the defendant company could process and analyse the given information for assessment and checking any prior involvement of the infringer. Only after completion of this process could the plaintiff initiate suitable action. In response to this paragraph, in its replication, the plaintiff has merely averred that the contents of the corresponding para warrant no reply to the extent that they form a part of the record. There is no specific denial of the submissions of the defendant in para 3.
34. Similarly, in para 5 of the preliminary submissions of the WS, the defendant has submitted that dealing with the plaintiff was from case to case basis and there was no running account with the defendant. It is also submitted that plaintiff was required to file prior approval of defendant company for investigation, photographs of infringing products, copy of FIR and detailed report of investigation along with the invoice which was not filed. In response to this paragraph, in its replication, plaintiff has submitted that the contents of the corresponding para warrant no reply to the extent that they form a part of the record. There is no specific denial of the submissions of the defendant in para 5.
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 23/3335. In view of the above discussion and lack of specific denials by the plaintiff in his replication, the defendant has proved by preponderance of probabilities that a pre-raid investigation report was required to be submitted by the plaintiff with the defendant for approval of further action and to decide whether a criminal raid was required such as in cases of copyright infringement or whether a civil suit was to be filed such as in cases of design infringement.
36. Now I shall examine the contention of the plaintiff that there were standing instructions of the defendant company to conduct investigation and raids without prior approval of the defendant. In this regard, I shall refer to following cross-examination of PW1:
"Q23. Whether there were any standing instructions to conduct investigation and raids for the Plaintiff Company from Defendant Company?
Ans. Yes, there were standing instructions through emails, phone calls, whatsapp messages and in several meetings.
Q24. Have you filed any document on record to show standing instructions were given to you by Defendant Company?
Ans. Yes, we have filed documents to this effect which are part of emails exhibited as Ex.PW1/4(colly) which led us to execute a total of 20 raid actions indifferent regions and cities against counterfeit products of Kent RO till December 2017.
Q25. I put it to you that you have given an incorrect statement in response to the question no.CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 24/33
24 as the Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) allegedly consist emails sent from plaintEx.PW1 company to the defendant company only?
Objected by the Ld. counsel for the plaintiff once a document has been referred to by the witness, the contents of that document being correct or incorrect have to be argued before the Ld. Court.
Ans. It is incorrect.
Q26. How did you get approval for specific raids from Defendant Company?
Ans. Due to standing instructions and clear mandate to execute raids on behalf of Kent RO, we were not required to seek approvals for specific raid, which is evidenced by clearance of 15 plus invoices raised by us for raids executed for Kent RO."
37. It is noted that Ex.PW1/4 (Colly) are emails sent by plaintiff to the defendant with request to clear pending bills. There is not even an iota of reference to standing instructions on behalf of the defendant in these emails. The plaintiff could not prove its case to this extent. As already discussed above, defendant has proved that prior approval of defendant was needed before initiating further action/criminal raid/civil raid on the basis of pre-raid investigation report of the plaintiff. Such approval was never obtained by the plaintiff in respect of the invoices in question.
38. The issues no. 2 and 3 are decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 25/33 ISSUE NO. 1"1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,87,874/- ? (OPP)"
39. Onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff.
40. In its plaint, the plaintiff has averred that as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, the balance amount of Rs. 3,87,874/- was found outstanding against the defendant. Contention of the defendant is that the payments were made on case to case basis and the invoices in question were not paid because they were not accompanied with requisite approvals. The plaintiff did not produce any statement of account in its favour. Regarding maintenance of ledger account by the plaintiff in respect of its transactions with defendant, following questions were put to PW1 in his cross-examination:
"Q60. Whether you have filed ledger and account details to show outstanding dues qua the Defendant Company in relation to tasks undertaken by the Plaintiff Company?
Ans. It is matter of record.
Q61. Can you point out from your record ledger account details to show outstanding dues qua the Defendant Company?
Ans. I am not carrying the data pertaining to ledger account details.CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 26/33
Q62. Can you produce the ledger account details qua the Defendant Company as maintained by the Plaintiff Company?
Ans. It can be produced but difficult to search and find as such old data."
41. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant kept giving work to the plaintiff throughout 2016-17 through emails and telephonically. Invoices were shared by the plaintiff with the defendant for the work done and as per the statement of account maintained by the plaintiff, there was a balance of Rs. 3,87,874/- outstanding against the defendant. Despite basing the present suit on a statement of account maintained by it, the plaintiff failed to produce the same. It has also been already held in issues no. 2 and 3 that prior approval in respect of the work related to the five invoices in question was not obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant.
42. The plaintiff has also alleged in his plaint that the defendant used the material collected by the plaintiff during the investigations to its benefit. To corroborate this assertion, plaintiff placed on record Ex.PW1/6 (Colly), Ex. PW1/7 (Colly) and Ex.PW1/8 (Colly). Nature of these documents has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Out of these documents, none except DD No. 21 pertaining to invoice no.
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 27/3365 pertains to any of the invoices in question. It has also been discussed in the preceding paragraphs how invoice no. 65 is a highly controverted invoice and how the plaintiff could not prove its case regarding non requirement of prior approval of defendant before initiating civil or criminal raid. The plaintiff, thus, could not prove that the defendant took the benefit of the work done by the plaintiff in respect of the impugned invoices.
Territorial Jurisdiction
43. When the case was listed for final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the defendant moved an application u/O 7 R 10 CPC. Plaintiff filed its reply. To avoid any further delay in the matter which is pending since 16.07.2019, it was directed vide Order dated 31.07.2025 that the issue of territorial jurisdiction shall be decided at the time of final judgment.
44. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon the invoices in question filed by the plaintiff and has submitted that the plaintiff is based in Gurgaon. The invoices in question were issued from Gurgaon. The invoices were addressed to the defendant at Noida. It is also been pointed out that each of the invoices contains a clear clause that all disputes were subject to the jurisdiction of Courts at Gurgaon.
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 28/3345. The contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is that the issue has been raised at a much belated stage when the trial had already concluded and the plaintiff did not have any opportunity to lead evidence in this regard. It was also argued that on one hand, the defendant has disputed the invoices in question and on the other hand, it is also placing reliance upon these invoices to oust the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is submitted that the defendant cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
46. Ld. Counsel for defendant has relied upon following case laws:
(i) Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay Vs. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270;
(ii) Swastik Gases Private Limited Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2019) 9 SCC 32.
47. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following judgments:
(i) Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. DLF Universal Limited & Anr. (2005) 7 SCC 791;
(ii) Economic Transport Organisation V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1985 SCC OnLine Ker 169;
(iii) Wollaque Ventilation & Conditioning Pvt Ltd Vs. Sterling Tools Ltd, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 893;CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 29/33
(iv) United India Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Associated Transport Corpn.
Pvt. Ltd. 1987 SCC OnLine Ker 13;
(v) Shridhar Vyapaar Private Limited Vs. Gammon India Limited, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 11749;
(vi) Sri Durga Lodge Pvt Ltd Vs. Federal Llyod Corporation Ltd 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 749;
(vii) Nand Lal Mahesh Kumar Vs. Beekalene Fabrics Ltd. 2006 SCC OnLine Raj 458;
(viii) National Starch and Chemicals Vs. Weikfield Products Co.
(India) 1989 SCC OnLine Ker 220;
(ix) Sangha Erectors (P) Ltd. Vs. Laxmi Cranes & Trailers (P) Ltd. 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 37;
(x) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. 1991 SCC OnLine Kar 387;
(xi) Greentose Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. 2014 SCC OnLine Guj 13317.
48. I have considered the above mentioned case laws carefully. In para 18 of the plaint, the plaintiff has submitted that defendant is registered at and the all the Directors and officials of the defendant are based within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In response, defendant has merely denied this assertion in the WS. It has, however, not been denied that the registered office of the defendant is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 30/3349. Perusal of record would show that invoices in question do not have acknowledgment of the defendant and there is nothing to show that it was mutually agreed by the parties that the Courts at Gurgaon shall have the territorial jurisdiction to try the disputes between the parties. The jurisdiction clause in the invoices in question reads as follows:
'All disputes subject to Gurgaon Jurisdiction.' This clause does not say that the Courts at Gurgaon will have exclusive jurisdiction to try the disputes between the parties. Further, no substantial cause of action has arisen in Gurgaon. The case of the plaintiff is that the work in respect of the invoices in question pertained to locations in Delhi and Faridabad. The substantial cause of action has, thus, arisen in Delhi and Faridabad. The principal office of the defendant is also situated in Delhi. Merely because Noida address of the defendant is mentioned in the invoices, it does not lead to the conclusion that substantial cause of action had arisen in Noida.
50. Coming back to the jurisdiction clause mentioned in the invoices, this clause, on the face of it, has been got printed on the invoices unilaterally. It is not the case of the defendant that there was a meeting of minds between plaintiff and the defendant or that there was a specific agreement between them that the Courts in Gurgaon would have the exclusive jurisdiction over the disputes between the parties. In CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 31/33 Wollaque Ventilation Case, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as follows:
"19. No doubt, the copies of the bills raised by the appellants also contain a jurisdiction clause by stating "All disputes are subject to Delhi Jurisdiction". However, this condition is again subject to the acceptance of the purchase order. Therefore once, the appellant agreed to supply the goods in terms of the purchase order placed by the respondent which provides that jurisdiction in case of dispute would be that of the Faridabad Courts only, mere mention of the terms 'subject to Delhi jurisdiction' in their invoices will not annul the terms and conditions contained in the purchase order which is the basis of accepting the purchase order by the appellant."
51. So far as, Swastik Gases case is concerned, there was a written agreement between the parties wherein it was specifically mentioned that the agreement would be subject to jurisdiction of the Courts at Kolkata and a part of cause of action had also arisen in Kolkata. It was in such circumstances that it was held that the intentions of the parties as reflected in the agreement signed by them was clear and, therefore, the Courts at Kolkata would have the jurisdiction to try their dispute. This case is distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the present circumstances.
52. In Patel Roadways case, section 20 CPC was discussed in detail, it was held that in cases of a corporation, for the purposes of clause
(a), the location of the sub-ordinate office, within the local limits of CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 32/33 which a cause of action arises, is to be the relevant place for the filing of a suit and not the principal place of business. As already discussed above, no substantial cause of action has arisen either in Gurgaon or in Noida. The locations of investigation conducted by the plaintiff are in Delhi and Faridabad. The principal office of the defendant is also situated in Delhi within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The present suit is, therefore, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
53. In light of the above discussion the plaintiff has failed to discharge its onus to prove issue no. 1. Issue no. 1 is, therefore, decided against the plaintiff.
RELIEF
54. Since the plaintiff failed to discharge the onus cast upon it to prove issues no. 1 and 2, the present suit is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.
55. Decree Sheet be drawn.
56. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 18th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 Digitally signed VRINDA by VRINDA KUMARI (VRINDA KUMARI) KUMARI Date: 2025.10.18 District Judge(Commercial Courts)- 03, 16:03:27 +0530 SED/Saket Courts/Delhi(R) CS DJ 592/19 BRAND PROTECTORS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD 18.10.2025 Page 33/33