The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of ₹20 lakh on the founder of Instant Bollywood for deliberately suppressing material facts before the court in a trademark dispute. The order was passed by a Division Bench after finding that the respondent had misled the court by failing to disclose an earlier proceeding in which a civil court in Mumbai had rejected his claim over the trademark in question, a fact that was directly relevant to the trademark infringement and rectification petitions pending before the High Court.
The dispute revolved around the use and ownership of a trademark associated with the entertainment industry. The petitioner had challenged the respondent’s application for trademark registration as well as his use of the mark, alleging that it was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark and that the respondent had no proprietary rights. During the pendency of the matter in the Delhi High Court, the respondent had initiated a civil suit in a Mumbai court asserting rights over the same mark. The Mumbai suit resulted in an order dismissing the respondent’s claim, holding that he had no exclusive rights to the mark, but this order was not disclosed to the High Court. The High Court found that this omission amounted to deliberate suppression of a relevant judicial decision that had direct bearing on the issues before it.
The court observed that litigants have a duty to place all material facts and earlier judicial decisions that could influence the outcome of the case before the tribunal. By failing to disclose the adverse order from Mumbai, the respondent had misled the High Court and sought to gain an unfair advantage. The bench noted that such conduct undermines the administration of justice and cannot be condoned, especially in matters involving intellectual property rights where clarity over proprietary claims is essential.
In imposing the ₹20 lakh fine, the High Court emphasized that monetary sanctions are justified in cases of deliberate non-disclosure to deter similar conduct in future litigation. The court clarified that the fine was imposed on the respondent personally and not on the company he founded, since it was his individual conduct that constituted the suppression of material facts. The bench also directed that the fine amount be deposited within a stipulated timeframe and that failure to comply could have further legal consequences.
In addition to the monetary penalty, the High Court made strong observations about the ethical obligations of litigants and their counsel to ensure transparency and candour in judicial proceedings. The court highlighted that non-disclosure of material facts not only affects the integrity of the particular case but also places unnecessary burden on judicial resources and impedes the fair dispensation of justice. The Delhi High Court’s order thus served as a reaffirmation of the principle that full and frank disclosure is essential in litigation, and that attempts to obscure relevant facts will attract stern judicial action. The case continues to proceed on its merits with the respondent now compelled to reckon with the implications of the adverse order that was previously suppressed.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.