Salman Momin @ Salman Iqbal Ahmad Momin and Others vs Apsara Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Heti, Nagpur Thr. Director Akash Sunil Valeja and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Salman Momin @ Salman Iqbal Ahmad Momin and Others vs Apsara Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Heti, Nagpur Thr. Director Akash Sunil Valeja and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice ordered to the respondents, returnable on 29.04.2026; appellants permitted to serve the respondents by all permissible modes in addition to regular mode of service, including service on the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/s before the trial Court, and to file affidavit of service by the next date. The substantive challenge was not decided at this stage; the appeal stands adjourned to the return date.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants'/defendants' failure to comply with the trial Court's orders dated 10.02.2026 on Exhibits 35 & 36 - which led the trial Court to grant interim protection to the plaintiff on 27.03.2026 - was attributable to those orders not having been uploaded on the website and bearing a digital signature dated 30.03.2026, so that the appellants could not comply or file their written statement. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the appellants' contentions, the Court directed that notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 29.04.2026.

Key takeaways

The appellants are permitted to serve the respondents by all permissible modes, in addition to regular mode of service, including service on the learned Advocate.ratio¶22
Service may additionally be effected on the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/s before the trial Court, and the appellants are to file affidavit of service in that regard by the next date.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Appeal From Order No. 22 of 2026 - Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J. (decision date 22.04.2026). Notice-stage order on the appeal of Salman Momin @ Salman Iqbal Ahmad Momin and Others against the order dated 27.03.2026 of the learned District Judge - 15, Nagpur, passed below Exhibit (1) in Suit Trade Mark Case No.6/2024, whereby interim protection was granted in favour of plaintiff Apsara Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. as per Clause (A) of the prayer clause of its temporary-injunction application at Exhibit 28 (moved under Section 94, Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC), on the ground that the defendants had not complied with the trial Court's orders dated 10.02.2026 on Exhibits 35 & 36 (setting aside the exparte order and the 'No Say Order'), which were allowed subject to costs of Rs.100/- per day. Counsel for the appellants contended that non-compliance resulted from those orders not being uploaded on the website and bearing a digital signature dated 30.03.2026; in consequence the appellants are restrained from carrying on business conducted under an independently registered trade mark, while Exhibit 28 itself remains undecided (further hearing 10.06.2026). The Court heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, ordered notice to the respondents returnable on 29.04.2026, permitted service by all permissible modes including service on the respondent/s' trial-Court Advocate, and directed filing of an affidavit of service by the next date. No precedent is cited and no substantive holding is pronounced at this stage.

1 / 3 74.ao22.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 22 OF 2026

SALMAN MOMIN @ SALMAN IQBAL AHMAD MOMIN AND OTHERS VS APSARA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., NAGPUR AND ANOTHER

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

Mr. A.A. Naik, Senior Advocate a/by Mr. R.P. Masurkar, Advocate for appellants.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATE : 22.04.2026

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the

appellants.

The appellants’ challenge is to order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge – 15, Nagpur, below Exhibit (1) in Suit Trade Mark Case No.6/2024.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent has filed a suit alleging infringement of trade mark and passing off. The suit has proceeded exparte against the defendants (appellants herein). The plaintiff had also filed a separate application at Exhibit 28 under Section 94, Order XXXIX Rules 1 &

Prity

2 / 3 74.ao22.2026

2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking temporary injunction. Since the suit was proceeded exparte against the appellants/defendants, they had moved an application for setting aside the exparte order at Exhibit 36 and by a separate application at Exhibit 35, a prayer was made to set the aside the ‘No Say Order’.

It is pointed out that by orders dated 10.02.2026 on Exhibit 35 & 36 both these applications were allowed subject to costs of Rs.100/- per day, however, the orders were not uploaded on the website immediately and it is pointed out that the digital signature on the order bears date as 30.03.2026. It is, therefore, submitted that since the orders were not uploaded on the website, the appellants/defendants were not in a position to comply with the orders and file their written statement on record.

Under these circumstances, on 27.03.2026 the trial Court passed an order at Exhibit 1 and by observing that since the defendants (appellants herein) have not complied with the orders dated 10.02.2026 passed on applications at Exhibit 35 and 36, granted interim protection in favour of the plaintiff as per Clause (A) of the prayer clause of application for temporary injunction at Exhibit 28. It is also pointed out that this order is also uploaded with the digital signature bearing date as 30.03.2026. It is submitted that the application for

Prity

3 / 3 74.ao22.2026

temporary injunction at Exhibit 28 is not yet decided and it is listed for further hearing on 10.06.2026. As a result of the order dated 27.03.2026, an interim protection is granted and the appellants are now restrained from carrying out their business, which they are carrying out on the basis of an independently registered trade mark.

In view of these contentions, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 29.04.2026.

The appellants are permitted to serve the respondents by all permissible modes, in addition to regular mode of service, including service on the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/s before the trial Court and file affidavit of service in that regard by next date.

(Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

Signed by: Mrs. Prity Gabhane Prity Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/04/2026 14:52:30

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 27.03.2026 passed by the learned District Judge - 15, Nagpur below Exhibit (1) in Suit Trade Mark Case No.6/2024, observing that the defendants (appellants) had not complied with the trial Court's orders dated 10.02.2026 on Exhibits 35 and 36, and granting interim protection in favour of the plaintiff as per Clause (A) of the prayer clause of the application for temporary injunction at Exhibit 28; the order is stated to have been uploaded with digital signature bearing date 30.03.2026.¶11
District Judge - 15, Nagpur (trial Court) · 27.03.2026
Prior proceeding
The respondent (plaintiff) instituted Suit Trade Mark Case No.6/2024 alleging infringement of trade mark and passing off; the suit proceeded exparte against the defendants (the present appellants).¶12
Prior proceeding
The plaintiff filed a separate application at Exhibit 28 under Section 94, Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking temporary injunction.¶12
Prior proceeding
Since the suit proceeded exparte, the defendants/appellants moved an application at Exhibit 36 for setting aside the exparte order and, by separate application at Exhibit 35, prayed to set aside the 'No Say Order'.¶15
Prior proceeding
By orders dated 10.02.2026 on Exhibits 35 & 36, the trial Court allowed both applications subject to costs of Rs.100/- per day.¶16
Prior proceeding
The orders dated 10.02.2026 were not uploaded on the website immediately, and the digital signature on the order bears date as 30.03.2026.¶16
Prior proceeding
It is submitted that because the orders dated 10.02.2026 were not uploaded on the website, the appellants/defendants were unable to comply with them or file their written statement.¶16
Prior proceeding
The impugned order dated 27.03.2026 is likewise uploaded with digital signature bearing date as 30.03.2026.¶17
Prior proceeding
Effect of the order dated 27.03.2026: interim protection operates in favour of the plaintiff and the appellants are restrained from carrying out the business they conduct on the basis of an independently registered trade mark.¶20
Prior proceeding
The application for temporary injunction at Exhibit 28 is not yet decided and is listed for further hearing on 10.06.2026.¶20