Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd
Respondent / Defendant
Lakha Ram Sharma
Dispute Summary
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Outcome / Ruling
defendant_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 5 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi High Court - Orders M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Lakha Ram Sharma on 24 April, 2026 Author: Jyoti Singh Bench: Jyoti Singh $~85 & 86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 M/S BALAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. versus LAKHA RAM SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani and Mr. Utkarsh Jha, Advocates. 86 + CM(M)-IPD 19/2026 M/S BALAR MARKETING PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate. versus LAKHA RAM SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. M.K. Miglani and Mr. Utkarsh Jha, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH ORDER % 24.04.2026 CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 & CM 80/2026 1. This petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to order dated 23.01.2026 passed by learned District Judge-16, Tis Hazari Courts, by which an application filed by the Petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1(2) and Rule 1(3) CPC for examination of additional witness Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain, CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 1 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 has been dismissed. Petitioner herein is the Defendant in TM No. 968/2016, while Respondent is the Plaintiff and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before this Court. 2. Case set up by the Petitioner is that through its predecessors, Petitioner adopted the trademark KUNDAN in 1975 in relation to wide range of electric goods. Petitioner's predecessor, namely, M/s AIPIAI Electric Trading Company filed trademark application for registration of KUNDAN CAB (device) on 24.04.1982 in Class 09 with user claim since 1980 and applied for registration of trademark KUNDAN on 23.03.1989 in Class 09. On 29.01.1992, Petitioner filed trademark application for registration of KUNDAN CAB in relation to electrical accessories and fittings including electrical switches, wires and cables, electric iron etc. 3. It is stated in the petition that by virtue of Assignment Deed dated 17.02.1993, Petitioner acquired trademark rights in trademark KUNDAN and filed recordal application on 29.04.1993. Lakha Ram Sharma/Respondent trading as Kundan Cable India filed trademark application in Class 09 on 13.05.1993 on 'proposed to be used' basis, which was later abandoned. Petitioner filed trademark application for registration of KUNDAN in Class 11 on 17.05.1993 in relation to fans, geysers etc. as also in Class 09. 4. It is stated that Respondent filed a suit on 04.04.1994 before the Trial Court numbered as TM No. 70/2010 (TM No. 968/2016) alleging passing off. Counter Claim was filed by the Petitioner (later numbered as 07/2015) alleging passing off. On 14.04.1994, Petitioner filed a suit against Kundan Cable India being Suit No. 1371/1994 in this Court (renumbered as TM No. 71/2010), which was later transferred to the Trial Court. In the suit, CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 2 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 Petitioner alleged infringement of copyright as also passing off by the Respondent. 5. It is stated that on 29.07.1994, trademark KUNDAN was registered in favour of the Petitioner in Class 09. Petitioner filed a suit in this Court being Suit No. 1497/1995 (renumbered as 73/2010), which was transferred to the Trial Court, wherein permanent injunction against publishing of any Caution Notice was sought along with damages. Another suit filed by the Petitioner was transferred to the Trial Court bearing No. 72/2010 for infringement of trademark in Class 09. On 30.11.2018, orders were passed by the Trial Court in TM Nos. 70-73/2010 and Counter Claim 07/2015, to which challenge was laid and appeals are pending in this Court. 6. It is stated that on 20.07.2019 combined issues were settled in all suits. On 04.07.2024, consolidated evidence was filed by way of affidavit by Mr. Paras Jain (DW1) in TM No. 70/2010, TM No. 71/2010, TM No. 72/2010, TM No. 73/2010 and Counter Claim No. 07/2015. Plaintiff cross-examined DW1 and the witness was discharged on 16.12.2025. Matters were put up for remaining Defence Evidence on 08.01.2026. During cross-examination, DW1 was confronted with questions pertaining to Jainsons Switchgear of Anand, Gujarat to whom the Petitioner had assigned the trademark KUNDAN bearing Registration No. 507445 in Class 09 in respect of 'Fuse Units' along with certified copy of letter dated 27.11.2019 annexing therewith his affidavit and affidavit of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain, proprietor of Jainsons Switchgear of Anand, Gujarat. The document was admitted and exhibited as Ex.DW1/P-7. In order to explain the facts regarding the restricted assignment as also to bring on record the Assignment Deed dated 02.01.2026, whereby Jainsons Switchgear of CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 3 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 Anand, Gujarat assigned the trademark KUNDAN to the Petitioner, Petitioner filed an application under Order 16 Rule 1(2) and Rule 1(3) CPC , which was dismissed by impugned order dated 23.01.2026. 7. Learned Trial Court observed that vide order dated 20.07.2019, an issue of ownership of the Petitioner with respect to trademarks KUNDAN, KUNDAN CABLE and KUNDAN CAB was framed and hence, one of the issues that the Court was required to decide was as to which of the two parties was the prior user of the said trademarks at the time of the filing of the suit TM No. 968/2016. Therefore, neither the documents sought to be placed on record nor re-examination of DW1 or additional evidence of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain will prove the state of affairs prevailing on the date of filing of the suit. If the initial assignment of the trademark in favour of the Petitioner was found to be invalid, then subsequent assignment of the trademark would automatically become invalid. It was also noted that vide order dated 30.11.2018, applications filed by both parties under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC were dismissed and there was no restriction on either party from dealing with the trademarks. Hence, if parties keep on assigning the trademarks and seek permission to place assignment deeds on record, the suit will never come to an end. It was further observed by the Trial Court that examination of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain was sought only to show that assignment of trademark KUNDAN vide Assignment Deed dated 27.11.2019 was carried out limited to 'Fuse Units', which fact was explicit from Ex. DW1/P-7 and affidavits of Mr. Paras Jain and Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain and therefore, examination of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain only to show what was assigned under the deed, was not necessary. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the impugned CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 4 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 order deserves to be set aside on multiple grounds. It is urged that both parties are litigating over the trademarks KUNDAN, KUNDAN CAB and KUNDAN CABLE for years and Petitioner claims its right through its predecessors, M/s AIPIAI Electric Trading Company and Smt. Promila Sehgal, proprietor of M/s Atul Cable Company with user claim since 1975. Respondent, on the other hand, claims to be in business of wires and cables since 17.01.1981 under the trademark KUNDAN CABLE (label). Consolidated evidence is being led in all the four suits and DW1 has been discharged on 16.12.2025 after cross-examination. The necessity to file an application to examine Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain as an additional witness arose due to the fact that during cross examination, DW1 was confronted with a certified copy of letter dated 27.11.2019 annexing therewith his affidavit and affidavit of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain dated 02.04.2014, which he admitted. Since the question related to a much subsequent event i.e., Assignment Deed dated 28.02.2013, which was an internal arrangement within the concerned group, Petitioner got the same reassigned in its favour vide Deed of Assignment dated 02.01.2026 and this development needs to be brought on record for complete and proper adjudication of the suits as also to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Trial Judge has failed to appreciate that in the affidavit dated 02.04.2014, it was stated that the rights and titles in respect of mark KUNDAN were assigned vide Assignment Deed dated 28.02.2013 in respect of 'Fuse Units' only and therefore, execution of the Assignment Deed dated 02.01.2026 was a relevant and crucial fact which ought to be brought on record and evidence is required to be led in this regard. Cross-examination of DW1 related to an event which was 13 years subsequent to completion of pleadings and CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 5 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 therefore, Trial Court was not justified in declining examination of additional witness on this aspect. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that assignment of trademark by predecessor to the Petitioner is not an issue in the suit and thus the observation that if the initial assignment is found to be invalid against the Petitioner, then subsequent assignment by the Petitioner would become invalid, is misconceived and perverse. 9. Learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, defends the impugned order and submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the Trial Court has declined to permit examination of additional witness. It has been rightly held that the rights of the parties will be determined on the basis of prior use of the marks in question as on the date when the suit was instituted and hence, any subsequent assignment/re- assignment is of no consequence. In any event, Petitioner had sought examination of additional witness to show that the assignment of trademark KUNDAN was in respect of 'Fuse Units' only, which as rightly observed by the Trial Court is explicit from Ex. DW1/P-7. 10. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and counsel for the Respondent. 11. The controversy arising in the present petition is in a narrow compass and arises from an application filed by the Petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1(2) and Rule 1(3) CPC , whereby Petitioner sought permission to lead additional evidence of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain. The short ground on which this application was filed was that during cross-examination of DW1, witness was questioned about Jainsons Switchgear of Anand, Gujarat to which Petitioner had assigned the trademark KUNDAN bearing Registration No. 507445 in Class 09 in respect of 'Fuse Units' only and witness was also CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 6 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 confronted with certified copy of letter dated 27.11.2019 annexing therewith his affidavit and the affidavit of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain, which he admitted and therefore, to explain the facts that the assignment was confined to 'Fuse Units' only as also to ratify the re-assignment on 26.01.2026, examination of this additional witness was necessary and no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent as he will get the right to cross-examine the additional witness. 12. In my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Both parties have been litigating against each other with respect to the aforementioned trademarks. Common issues were settled in the four suits and consolidated evidence is being led. Respondent's evidence stands concluded and Petitioner has examined DW1. On 20.07.2019, five issues were settled by the Trial Judge and one of them was whether Petitioner is the owner of trademarks KUNDAN, KUNDAN CAB and KUNDAN CABLE. It is rightly held that the Court will have to ultimately decide the rights of the parties by determining which of them was the prior user as on the date when the suit in question was instituted. As a matter of fact, applications filed by both the parties for interim injunction were dismissed and parties are dealing with the trademarks under challenge without any restrictions. From the order as also the arguments of the parties, it is clear that the only reason why the Petitioner sought examination of Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain was to show that assignment of trademark KUNDAN vide Assignment Deed dated 27.11.2019 was carried out in respect of 'Fuse Units' only as also to bring the re-assignment on record vide Assignment Deed dated 02.01.2026. 13. Insofar as the assignment being with respect to 'Fuse Units' only is CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 7 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 concerned, it is rightly held by the Trial Court that this fact is evident and explicit from certified copy of letter dated 27.11.2019 annexed to which were affidavits of DW1 and Mr. Mahendra Kumar S. Jain. Significantly, the document is an admitted document and was exhibited as Ex. DW1/P-7. Hence, there is no need for any further evidence being led on this aspect. So far as bringing on record the Assignment Deed dated 02.01.2026 is concerned, no fault can be found with the finding of the Trial Court that this development was inconsequential since one of the issues settled in the suits was with respect to the ownership rights of the Petitioner in the concerned trademarks and this determination will be essentially based on which party was a prior user when the suit was instituted and therefore, leading additional evidence to prove re-assignment on 02.01.2026 can have no relevance to this determination. 14. There is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Pending application also stands disposed of. CM(M)-IPD 19/2026 & CM 82/2026 15. By this petition, Petitioner challenges impugned order dated 23.01.2026, whereby Trial Court has declined permission to the Petitioner to re-examine DW1, Mr. Paras Jain. 16. Petitioner filed an application under Order 18 Rule 4(2) and Rule 17 CPC read with Sections 142 and 143 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ('BSA') for re-examination of DW1 on the same grounds as mentioned in the application under Order 16 Rule 1(2) and Rule 1(3) CPC based on letter dated 27.11.2019 and Assignment Deed dated 02.01.2026. Trial Court has dismissed the application for the same reason for which the application CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 8 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28 under Order 16 Rule 1(2) and Rule 1(3) CPC was dismissed. 17. For the reasons stated above while dismissing CM(M)-IPD 18/2026, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference and the petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. JYOTI SINGH, J APRIL 24, 2026/VP/SS CM(M)-IPD 18/2026 and connected matter Page 9 of 9 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 15/05/2026 at 20:54:28
Cancel
Update Case