Delhi High Court - Orders
Anandam Sweets Private Limited vs Haldiram Snacks Private Limited & Anr on 3 February, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 123/2025
ANANDAM SWEETS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Shruti Manchanda, Advocate
versus
HALDIRAM SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Kashish Sethi
and Ms. Arpita Mishra, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 03.02.2026
I.A. 21982/2025 (Delay)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the replication to the written statement of the defendants with a further prayer that the same be taken on record.
2. Ms. Shruti Manchanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the written statement was served upon the plaintiff on 30.06.2025, which itself was filed after a delay of about 39 days, which was condoned by the Joint Registrar vide order dated 03.07.2025. She further submits 30 days' period to file replication commence from 03.07.2025 and would have concluded on 02.08.2025. Since the signing authority, Mr. Sumit Khandelwal was unwell during the period and suffering from various medical ailments, the plaintiff was constrained to authorise another person to sign and verify the pleadings in the replication. She submits that this exercise took almost 11 days which caused the delay in filing the replication. She submits that the delay caused is bonafide and the replication be taken on record since CS(COMM) 123/2025 Page 1 of 5 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 05/02/2026 at 20:36:01 it has been filed within the 15 days' extended period as per Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as "Original Side Rules").
3. Opposing the said application, Mr. Neeraj Gover, learned counsel appearing for the defendants, submits that firstly though the contention has been raised that the authorized signatory was unwell, no medical document has been annexed to the said application rendering the said submission unsustainable. Secondly, he submits that in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Original Side Rules, a copy of the replication was to be mandatorily served upon defendant, failure whereof, would entail the said replication unacceptable. He submits that admittedly the copy of replication was served upon the defendant on 29.08.2025, which is clearly beyond 45 days from the date when the written statement was taken on record i.e. 03.07.2025. He also submits that peculiarly the date of filing mentioned in the replication is 14.08.2025, however, the affidavit in support thereof indicates that it was attested on 28.08.2025. On that basis, he submits that the replication could be termed as an incomplete pleading which could not have been filed or taken on record as on 14.08.2025.
4. Furthermore, he relies on the judgment of the Full Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) 70/2024 titled Pragati Construction Consultants vs. Union of India & Anr. dated 07.02.2025 to submit that this Court ought to see not only the fatal defect of not having an attested affidavit as on 14.08.2025 but also other attending defects, if any, which were objected to by the Registry for filing of the replication and if any such further objections are found to be relevant, then to consider the filing of replication as non-est. He submits that the said facts have been concealed by the plaintiff. On that count, he submits that the replication ought not to be taken on record.
5. So far as the issue of non-filing of the medical document is concerned, CS(COMM) 123/2025 Page 2 of 5 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 05/02/2026 at 20:36:01 this Court is of the opinion that the same would not prejudice the defendant inasmuch as, the delay of 11 days is within the 15 days extension period and could be condoned even without such reason. The issue of non-service of the replication to the defendant in terms of Rule 5 Chapter VII of Original Side Rules is concerned, this Court vide order dated 14.01.2026 passed in CS(COMM) 729/2025 titled M/s. LMC Computers vs. iThink Apps Private Limited & Ors. has held that second part of Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules is directory and non-service of replication upon counsel for defendant is a mere irregularity, which can be cured by furnishing a copy of the replication to the defendant. That by itself, would not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking condonation of delay in filing the replication, if the same has been filed within the extended period of 15 days. In the present case, the replication is undoubtedly filed within 11 days of the extended period of 15 days, as stipulated in Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Original Side Rules.
6. So far as another contention which was raised by Mr. Grover in respect of the attestation of affidavit is concerned, the same may not hold water for the reason that the non-filing of an attested affidavit may be an irregularity at best, however, does not constitute an illegality which would render the replication non-est by itself. Therefore, that ground too is untenable.
7. So far as the reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench in Pragati Construction (supra) is concerned, the para 97 is extracted hereunder:-
"97. We summarise our answer to the Reference, as under:
a) Non-filing of the Arbitral Award alongwith an application under the Section 34 of the A&C Act would make the said application liable to be treated and declared as non-est, and the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act shall continue to run in spite of such filing;
b) Mere non-filing of the Statement of Truth or a defect in Statement of Truth being filed, that is, including with blanks or without attestation, would not ipso facto, make the filing to be CS(COMM) 123/2025 Page 3 of 5 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 05/02/2026 at 20:36:01 non-est. However, if accompanied with other defects, the Court may form an opinion, based on a cumulative list of such defects, that the filing was non-est;
c) Similarly, non-filing or filing of a defective Vakalatnama; the petition not being signed or properly verified; changes in the content of petition being made in form of addition/deletion of facts, grounds, or filing of additional documents from arbitral record, or filing with deficient court fee, each of these defects, individually would not render to filing of an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act to be treated and declared as non-est. However, presence of more than one of such defects may, in the given set of facts involved in a case, justify the conclusion of the Court that filing of the application was never intended to be final and therefore, is liable to be declared non-est."
8. So far as the present case is concerned, there is nothing on record, nor is anything available to find out as to whether any serious defects in respect of the replication, apart from the lack of attested affidavit, has been raised and brought on record by the Registry. In the absence thereof, it would not be possible for this Court to apply the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Pragati Construction (supra) as submitted by Mr. Grover.
9. So far as the delay in filing beyond 30 days is concerned, undoubtedly, the replication has been filed on the 11th day beyond 15 days and in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter VII of Original Side Rules read with the judgment in the case of M/s. LMC Computers (supra), the plaintiff is liable to pay costs for such condonation of delay. Accordingly, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the defendants within four weeks from date against written acknowledgement, the replication shall be taken on record.
10. The application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 123/2025 & I.A. 3808/2025 (Stay)
11. Mr. Grover, learned counsel for the defendants invites attention of this Court to order dated 25.04.2025, whereby the statement of the defendants was recorded in para-3, which is as under:-
CS(COMM) 123/2025 Page 4 of 5This 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 05/02/2026 at 20:36:01 "3. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants have still not launched any product under the mark "Anandam" as also that they do not have any plan to launch the same in the near future, especially till the next date of hearing."
12. Based on the aforesaid, Mr. Grover submits that in case the plaintiff is agreeable, the defendants are ready to extend the statement contained in para 3 of order dated 25.04.2025 till the pendency of the suit. Mr. Grover also submits that in case the plaintiffs are willing to give up their claim for damages and costs, the defendants would give up the mark "Anandam" as also withdraw the application filed by the defendant seeking registration of the mark "Anandam" before the Trademark Registry at Delhi, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants.
13. Ms. Manchanda, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that she would take appropriate instructions.
14. List on 02.04.2026 to enable the learned counsel for the plaintiff to complete her instructions.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 3, 2026 Aj CS(COMM) 123/2025 Page 5 of 5 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 05/02/2026 at 20:36:01