The Bombay High Court has imposed exemplary costs of ₹50 lakh on a plaintiff who secured an ex parte ad interim injunction by deliberately suppressing material facts and misrepresenting key details to the court. Justice Arif S. Doctor found that the plaintiff engaged in “gross suppression of material facts” and orchestrated a calculated fraud upon the court. The order was passed in a trademark infringement suit titled Shoban Salim vs. Chaitanya Arora, where the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling footwear bearing a mark alleged to be deceptively similar to his registered trademark.
In the proceedings, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction on June 30, and pursuant to that order, a court-appointed receiver seized the defendants’ consignments already in the market. The defendants filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the injunction on grounds of suppression of relevant facts. They contended that several critical facts had been withheld: that the plaintiff’s registration of the mark was territorially limited to the State of Maharashtra, that the defendants had been prior users of the disputed mark since April 2022, and that the plaintiff had taken inconsistent positions before the Trademark Registry concerning the scope of his registration.
The Court scrutinised these omissions and held that by hiding the territorial limitation, the prior user evidence, and the plaintiff’s contradictory stance before the Registry—while obtaining a pan-India injunction—the plaintiff had misled the court to unjustly expand his relief. The court noted that after these facts were brought to light, instead of modifying the injunction to limit it to Maharashtra, the plaintiff continued enforcement efforts, even filing multiple affidavits alleging contempt to maintain the order’s effect.
Justice Doctor held that such conduct could not be brushed aside as inadvertence or a mere oversight. It was an intentional and selective withholding of material that fundamentally altered the relief the court granted. He observed that to accept otherwise would place a premium on dishonesty and undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
Given the nature of the misconduct and in view of the defendants’ business being adversely impacted by the injunction, the Court directed the plaintiff to pay ₹25 lakh to each of the two defendants within four weeks. In arriving at the quantum, the Court considered Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, which takes into account parties’ conduct and allows for exemplary costs in commercial litigation.
Justice Doctor invoked Supreme Court precedent holding that courts must protect themselves against unscrupulous litigants who manipulate process, misstate facts, or suppress information. The order makes clear that those who play fraud upon the court cannot expect to have such conduct glossed over; instead, they will be held accountable in costs and potentially other consequences.
This decision is a strong judicial warning. It underscores that courts will not tolerate suppression or distortion of facts to obtain injunctive relief, especially in commercial disputes. It also reinforces that litigants must act with candour, full disclosure and integrity; failing which the remedy may result in severe financial penalty, reversal of orders, or loss of credibility before the court.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.