Delhi High Court - Orders
Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & ... vs Ashok Kumar/S & Ors on 30 July, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 1015/2024
TATA POWER RENEWABLE ENERGY LIMITED & ORS.
.....Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra with Mr. C.A.
Brijesh, Mr. Krisna Gambhir,
Advocates.
versus
ASHOK KUMAR/S & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Shivam Takkar, Advocate for
Defendant No.6.
Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for
Defendant No.10(through VC)
Mr. Aishwarya Dobhal, Advocate for
defendant no. 13
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra &
Mr. Tribhuvan, Advocates for
Defendant Nos.16 & 17
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 30.07.2025 IA No.13640/2025 (Application of the Plaintiffs seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act)
1. The present application has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
2. The underlying suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off and unfair trade competition.
Page 1 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29
3. Learned counsel for the Applicants/Plaintiffs state that the main contesting Defendants in the underlying suit are Defendant No.1 (who is John Doe) and Defendant Nos. 18. He states that the said Defendants have not entered appearance till date. He states that even otherwise the said Defendants have no real prospect of defending the claims of the Plaintiffs as mentioned in amended plaint dated 03.04.2025.
3.1. He states that Plaintiffs got to know between June, 2024-March, 2025 that many innocent persons were being duped by the Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.18 on the pretext of providing services and/or dealerships of the Plaintiffs.
3.2. He states that vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court in I.A. 45021/2024 (filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC), this Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 as well as others from using the registered trademarks of the Plaintiffs i.e., 'TATA', ' ', ' ', 'TATA POWER', ' ', ' ', or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs registered trademarks. He states that similar directions were passed by this Court vide order 08.04.2025. The relevant part of the orders dated 14.11.2024 and 08.04.2025 reads as under:
Order Dated 14.11.2024:Page 2 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 Page 3 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 Order Dated 08.04.2025 Page 4 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 Page 5 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 3.3. He states that the Plaintiffs in the captioned application are pressing for decree in terms of the prayers encapsulated in paragraphs '29 (a)' to '(h)' of the amended plaint against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 18. 3.4. He states that the Plaintiffs would be satisfied if the underlying suit is Page 6 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 disposed of qua Defendant Nos.1 and 18 and other Defendants in terms of the interim orders dated 14.11.2024 and 08.04.2025. He states that Defendant Nos. 1 and 18 have no real prospect of defending their claims. He states that therefore, in these circumstances the present application be allowed.
3.5. He states that with respect to Defendant Nos. 2 to 17, the Plaintiff is satisfied with the compliance of Defendant Nos. 2 to 17 (except Defendant Nos.10 and 13) and in this regards he refers to the proceedings recorded in order dated 15.07.2025.
3.6. In addition, he states that a dynamic injunction may be granted reserving liberty to the Plaintiffs to approach this Court by filing an appropriate application with a prayer to the learned Joint Registrar to extend the injunction granted vide orders dated 14.11.2024 and 08.04.2025 to any other mirror website/URL which may be discovered at a subsequent stage.
4. None appears on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 18. Finding and Analysis
5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record.
6. An affidavit of service dated 22.07.2025 has been filed on record by the counsel for the Plaintiffs which records that while there is no valid telephone number available for serving Defendant No.1, service on Defendant No.18 has been duly affected on its e-mail address and the said e- mail has not bounced back.
7. The plaint has been duly verified and is also supported by the affidavit of the authorised representative of the Plaintiffs. In view of the fact that the only contesting Defendants in the present case are Defendant Nos.1 and 18, Page 7 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 who have not filed any written statement, therefore, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the Defendant Nos. 1 and 18 in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by directing the Plaintiffs to lead ex-parte evidence by filing an affidavit of examination-in-chief and the Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment.
9. On perusal of the averments made in plaint and the evidence on record, the Plaintiffs have been able to prove that the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'TATA', ' ', ' ', 'TATA POWER', ' ', ' '.
10. Further, the impugned domain name and email address used by the Defendant No. 18 makes it apparent that the said Defendant No. 18 has slavishly copied the Plaintiffs' registered and well-reputed trademarks i.e., Page 8 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 'TATA', 'TATA POWER' and ' '.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts a clear case of infringement of trademarks and passing off is made out against the Defendant No.18 and in favour of the Plaintiffs.
12. At this juncture it would relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev1, wherein the Court while dealing with Order XIII-A of the CPC held as under:
"90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm.
91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgement against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression "real" directs the Court to examine whether there is a "realistic" as opposed to "fanciful" prospects of success. This Court is of the view that the expression "no genuine issue requiring a trial" in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and "no other compelling reason for trial" in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result.
92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim."1
2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764.
Page 9 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 (Emphasis supplied)
13. In the overall conspectus and considering the law settled a decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant Nos.1 and 18 in terms of prayer clauses at paragraphs '29 (a)' to '(h)' of the amended plaint dated 03.04.2025.
Further, in view of this permanent injunction granted, the Defendant No.18, is directed to suspend the domain name 'www.tatasolarpowerdistributor.com'.
Directions to Defendant Nos. 10 and 1314. Defendant Nos. 10 and 13 are directed to forthwith file their compliance affidavit in terms of order dated 15.07.2025.
Directions to Defendant Nos. 5 to 1415. Defendant Nos. 5 to 14 are directed to freeze and transfer the funds lying in the bank accounts enlisted at paragraph no. '20' of the amended plaint to Reserve Bank of India's Depositor and Education Awareness Fund, within four weeks (4) from today, if they have not received any attachment order from any Court and/or enforcement agency. The said paragraph no. '20' of the amended plaint reads as under:
"20. In a nutshell, Defendant Nos. 5-14, viz., Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, HDFC Bank Limited, Central Bank of India, Yes Bank Limited, Federal Bank, Canara Bank and Bank of Baroda are the respective Banks wherein the impostor Defendants have their bank accounts. The respective details of the bank accounts are as follows:
ACCOUNT RESPECTIVE BANK
NUMBER/UPI ID
598610110000361 Bank of India
4989000100095322 Punjab National Bank
2648291918 Kotak Mahindra Bank
Page 10 of 13
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 110166889662 Canara Bank 267901000011103 Indian Overseas Bank 50200096500394 HDFC Bank 5529420780 Central Bank of India 041752400002896 Yes Bank 18290100048666 Federal Bank 50100674313320 HDFC Bank 110148886415 Canara Bank bhoom63536188@barodamp Bank of Baroda ay (UPI ID) (sic) 110207981250 Canara Bank 0768101100000204 Punjab National Bank 79900100007902 Bank of Baroda 329301000006310 Indian Overseas Bank 379101000005061 Indian Overseas Bank 110228811107 Canara Bank It is submitted that the only correct information provided by Defendant No. 1 & Defendant No. 18 are the Bank Account Numbers and surprisingly in few of the instances other details such as IFSC Code and Account Name are incorrect. Therefore, Plaintiffs are taking the liberty of arraying head offices of the respective Banks for the limited purpose of ensuring timely compliance with any orders of this Hon'ble Court that may be passed at present or in the future."
15.1. Let an affidavit of compliance be filed on behalf of Defendant Nos. 5 to 14 within six (6) weeks from today.
16. With respect to remaining Defendants i.e. Defendant Nos. 2 to 17 (except Defendant Nos.10 and 13), in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs that the said Defendants have complied with the directions of this Court, it is noted that the relief sought against the said Page 11 of 13 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 defendants in this suit already stands satisfied. Thus, no directions are issued against these defendants and the suit is disposed of as satisfied against them.
17. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs states that he does not press for the remaining reliefs i.e., prayer clauses at paragraph 29 (i) and (j) prayed for in the suit (the amended plaint dated 03.04.2025). The said prayer clauses read as under:
"i. Pass and pronounce a final money decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant No. 1 & Defendant No. 18 for payment of damages in the sum of INR 2,00,02,000/- or in such higher sum as may be determined/ascertained pursuant to rendition of accounts;
j. A ward costs of the Suit"
In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs suit qua prayer clauses at paragraph 29 (i) and (j) is disposed off as not pressed.
Dynamic Injunction
18. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs states that the Plaintiffs be granted liberty to implead any other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which provides access to the Defendant No. 18, by filing an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 CPC so that the decree can be extended to the said party. For seeking this relief in nature of dynamic injunction the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs relies upon the judgments of this Court in and UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. V. 1337X.to& Ors.2 and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc v. HTTPS://SKYMOVIES.LIVE& ORS3.
19. Having perused the judgment in UTV Software Communication Ltd. (supra) and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc (supra), this Court is of 2 2019 SCC Online Del 8002.
Page 12 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29 the opinion that the Plaintiff is entitled to implead any other mirror/redirect/alphanumeric website which provides access to Defendant No. 18 by filing an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 CPC supported by affidavit and evidence as directed by UTV Software Communication (supra) before the Court. After examination of evidence, any website impleaded as a result of such application will be subject to the same decree as passed today.
20. The suit stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
21. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
22. The pending application stands disposed of.
23. Future dates stand cancelled.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 30, 2025/gm 3 CS(COMM) 409/2019 decided on 08.09.2022, paragraph nos. 26 and 28.
Page 13 of 13This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/08/2025 at 21:55:29