Disposed

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashoda Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC6 Apr 2026CRR/76/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application regarding intellectual property suit proceedings, the High Court of Bombay allowed the request to record subsequent proprietary and permitted amendment. The court also disposed of a Court Receiver report, discharging the receiver by way of payment of costs and addressing the quantum of such costs.

What did the court decide?

Allow interim application for recording proprietary and permitting amendment; discharge Court Receiver and accept her report; quantify costs at Rs. 5000/-.

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd. vs Yashoda… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1/2

¶2

19-IA-1033-26.DOC

¶3

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.04.08 10:28:06 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1033 OF 2026

¶5

¶6

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 253 OF 2015

¶7

Mahyco Private Limited ...Applicant/Plaintiff Versus Yashoda Hybrid Seeds Pvt Ltd ...Defendant

¶8

¶9

Ms Khushboo Jhunjhunwala and Ms Jaanvi Chopra i/b Khaitan & Co. for Applicant/Plaintiff.

¶10

Mr. Chintan Bhuva for Defendant.

¶11

Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to the Court Receiver present.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 6th APRIL 2026

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 The present interim application seeks to bring on record subsequent proprietory of mark in question. Furthermore, learned counsel for the Applicant/Plaintiff pointed out that the suit is undefended.

¶16

2 Mr. Bhuva entered appearance on behalf of the Defendant and has undertaken to file vakalatnama within one week from today. Given the formal nature of the application, he does not oppose the same.

¶17

3 Hence, interim application is accordinlgy allowed. Amendment to be carried out within a period two weeks from today.

Meera Jadhav

2/2

19-IA-1033-26.DOC

4 Inteirm application is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

5 Mr. Bhalerao, Second Assistant to the Court Receiver has today tendered

¶23

Court Receiver Report No.76 of 2026, which is taken on record. The report seeks the following directions:-

¶24

“a) Hon'ble Court may be pleased to discharge the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, without passing of account but subject to payment of costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver to be borne by the Plaintiff within the stipulated period as may be directed by the Hon'ble Court;

¶25

¶26

b) What further steps the Court Receiver shall take as the Court Receiver has complied with the directions passed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 27.07.2015?

¶27

c) The Costs of this report may be quantified to Rs. 5000/- and the Court Receiver may be permitted to deduct from the available balance in the suit account;

¶28

d) Any other directions that the Hon'ble Court may deem it fit and proper.”

¶29

6 Having due regard to the fact that the Court Receiver has in terms of the order dated 27th July 2015, carried out that necessary inventory. The Court Receiver can be discharged. The report is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). The report is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

7 Copy of the Court Receiver’s Report to be made available to the Applicant/plaintiff on the payment of necessary costs, charges and expenses.

¶31

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

¶32

Meera Jadhav

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashoda Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Yashoda Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayant Kumar vs Jambopay Express Private Limited

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs Sudhir v R

Smt. Mangal Raosaheb Pathare and Ors. vs M/S. Aaba Electricals Gov. Licence Electrical Contractor and Engineer and Anr.

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs M/S Shiv Shakti Enterprises

Ratansingh and Bros vs Union of India through the General Manager and Anr.

Saathi Inc. vs Office of the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks