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)
Vikas Kumar And Anr
Respondent / Defendant
Gurpreet Singh Bhatia And Anr
Dispute Summary
The Delhi District Court dismissed an appeal against a judgment that ordered the specific performance of an agreement for the transfer of the trademark 'ALLWYN' from the appellant to the respondent. The court held that the appellant's unilateral cancellation of the agreement was not valid and that the respondent was willing and ready to perform their part of the contract. The court also noted that the appellant's subsequent assignment of the trademark to a third party did not affect the respondent's rights.
Outcome / Ruling
defendant_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 5 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court Vikas Kumar And Anr vs Gurpreet Singh Bhatia And Anr on 16 July, 2026 In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka District Judge - 07, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi RCA DJ 185/25 CNR DLCT01-016320-2025 In the matter of: 1. Sh. Vikas Kumar, S/o Sh. Inder Raj Arora, R/o 1C-56, N.H.1, Faridabad-121001. 2. Sh. Jagdish Lal Bhatia, S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Bhatia, R/o 1166, Sainik Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Sector-49, Faridabad-121001. .......Appellants versus 1. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhupinder Singh Bhatia, R/o Buiilding No. 59, M.M. Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi-110055. 2. Registrar of Trademark Office At Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. ........Respondents RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 1 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr. Appeal was presented on : 27.10.2025 Appeal was registered on : 28.10.2025 Arguments concluded on : 02.06.2026 Date of decision : 16.07.2026 Result : Dismissed. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 CPC JUDGEMENT The present appeal has been preferred under Section 96 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2025 passed by Ld. Civil Judge-03 (Central), Delhi in suit bearing No. CS SCJ 3395/2018 in the matter of 'Gurpreet Singh Bhatia vs. Vikas Kumar & Ors. '. I have heard arguments from Sh. Nilesh Kumar, Ld. Counsel for appellants and Sh. Harish Kumar with Sh. Farwaz Aftab and Ms. Vidhi Dusad, Ld. Counsel for respondents. File perused. 2. In the present appeal, it is stated that the judgment and decree passed by the Ld. Trial Court are erroneous in law and same are not legally sustainable on factual aspects. It is also claimed that Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, it is prayed that the said judgment/decree may be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment/decree of the Ld. Trial Court and argued that the Ld. Trial Court duly appreciated the material placed on record and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 2 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr. Brief facts of the suit 4. The brief facts of the suit are that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff is the owner of Empire Furniture Company. It is stated that appellant/defendant agreed to sell his registered trademark "ALLWYN" (Class 20) to respondent/plaintiff. On 09.05.2018, an Assignment Deed was signed between the respondent/plaintiff no.1 and appellant/defendant no.1, and the respondent/plaintiff paid Rs.1 lakh in cash as token money and agreed to pay the remaining Rs.2 lakhs by cheque after completion of the brand transfer proceeding. On 19.05.2018, appellant/defendant no. 1 issued a cancellation letter, which the respondent/plaintiff claimed to be illegal. On 25.05.2018, respondent/plaintiff replied to the cancellation letter stating that the delay was from the side of defendant/appellant. Thereafter, appellant/defendant no. 2 confirmed their readiness to transfer on the condition that he be appointed as the head of the business of respondent/plaintiff with a salary of Rs.1.5 lakh per month, which the respondent/plaintiff accepted. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff deposited the cheque of Rs.2 lakh cheque on 21.06.2018 and started the transfer process, but the respondent came to know that appellant had already issued trademark to third party. Upon which, the respondent/plaintiff issued a letter to stop payment of the cheque of Rs.2 lakh and sent a legal notice to the appellant/defendant on 25.06.2018. it was thus alleged that the appellant/defendant failed to perform his part of contract. Reasons for decision RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 3 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr. 5. The main contention raised in this case is that the agreement dated 09.05.2018 was subject to payment of consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000, but the plaintiff did not pay the said amount and the cheque given by him was defective. In the cross-examination of plaintiff as well as defendant no. 1, it came on record that the cheque was filled up with all details and it was mentioned in the agreement also, but it was not presented due to one or two reasons. The defendant/appellant pleaded that the said agreement dated 09.05.2018 was subject to 3 more conditions, which he communicated to the plaintiff in the cancellation letter dated 19.05.2018. 6. Ld. Trial Court considered the said submission and held that in view of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, the oral conditions/terms cannot be read into the agreement which was reduced into writing. This court is in agreement with the said reasoning. The defendant no.2 is father in law of defendant no.1. A further agreement was also executed between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 on 19.06.2018, in which the plaintiff agreed to employ the defendant no. 2 for a long period of 15 years with specific terms and conditions which shows that even the said condition was not the part of the original assignment agreement, yet it was acceded to by the plaintiff and that is why, the said agreement dated 19.06.2018 was executed. This way, the second condition of the letter of the defendant no. 1 also stands fulfilled and it shows that the plaintiff was willing and ready to perform his part of the contract and that is why, he agreed to execute the second agreement with the defendant no. 2. RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 4 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr. 7. However, the appellant/defendant no.1 did not comply with the terms of the assignment agreement in favour of the plaintiff. If there was any issue with regard to discrepancy in the cheque of Rs.2 lakh, the defendant should have communicated to the plaintiff in writing or otherwise to replace the said cheque, but instead of doing so, he unilaterally sent a notice dated 19.05.2018 canceling the assignment agreement. 8. It is a settled position of law that an agreement (in the form of part specific performance) cannot be unilaterally canceled unless a default is proved on the part of the party who was under obligation to perform it. It is also a settled position of law that a party who seeks to cancel an agreement is also required to specifically claim a relief of cancellation of such instrument by filing a counter claim or separate suit and since the defendant/appellant no.1 did not take any such step, the said unilateral cancellation of the agreement cannot be considered. On the other hand, the plaintiff succeeded in proving the relevant facts which entitled him specific performance of the agreement and the amount of Rs.2,00,000 which was withheld on account of conduct of defendant no. 1 can be given to him. In this regard, Ld. Trial Court already gave 30 days' time to the parties to fulfill the terms of the said agreement which can be applicable from the date of this judgment. 9. In the present appeal, it is also contended by the appellant that the subsequent assignment of the trademark by the appellant will affect the rights of the subsequent bona fide third party/assignee. In the RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 5 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr. opinion of this court, when an agreement has been entered into between two parties, unless such agreement is voidable at the option of a party, both the parties are under obligations to follow the terms of such agreement and if any party contravenes in doing so and enters into a new transaction with a third party, then he or she takes the risk of doing harm to the third party. In this case, if the defendant/appellant no.1 has taken the said risk of entering into an agreement or assigning the trademark to some third party, it was not the fault of the plaintiff/respondent no.1 and it is a settled position of law that a person cannot be allowed to take advantage of its his own wrong. 10. The relief of specific performance is discretionary in nature and when the conduct of the defendant is not clean and fair, whereas the plaintiff is always willing and ready to perform his part of the contract, which is reflected from entering into a second agreement to hire the defendant no. 2 who is the father-in-law of the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff deserves granting the said relief of specific performance as well as injunction. Conclusion 110. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment/decree. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed with costs payable to the respondent no.1 and the impugned judgment/decree of Ld. Trial Court are upheld. The trial court record be sent back along with copy of this RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 6 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr. judgment to the Ld. Trial Court. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Announced & dictated in Digitally signed by NARESH the open court on 16.07.2026 NARESH KUMAR KUMAR LAKA Date: LAKA (Naresh Kumar Laka) 2026.07.16 16:43:49 +0530 District Judge-07, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. RCA DJ 185/25 Page No. 7 of 7 Vikas Kumar and Anr. vs. Gurpreet Singh Bhatia and Anr.
Cancel
Update Case