Mukeshbhai Mangaldas Deshani vs Hindustan Unilver Plc — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mukeshbhai Mangaldas Deshani vs Hindustan Unilver Plc — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission granted to the Plaintiffs to destroy the infringing goods bearing the counterfeit marks and artworks seized by the Court Receiver (prayer clause (a)); Interim Application No.3228 of 2025 disposed of; liberty reserved to take out proceedings seeking compensation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Plaintiffs should be permitted, in terms of prayer clause (a), to destroy the infringing goods bearing the counterfeit marks and artworks seized pursuant to the order dated 5th March 2018. +1 more

Court's answer

The interim application seeking permission to destroy the seized offending goods ought to be allowed, as it arises pursuant to the Court's order dated 5th March 2018 appointing the Court Receiver to seize those goods.

Ratio / Principle

Interim Application (L) No.10685 of 2026 is allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a), permitting the Plaintiffs to destroy the infringing goods bearing the counterfeit marks and artworks.

Key takeaways

Nothing survives in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025, and it is accordingly disposed of.ratio¶27
The Applicant in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025 is granted liberty to take out appropriate proceedings seeking compensation as prayed for.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Commercial Division (Arif S. Doctor, J.), decision dated 25 March 2026, in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No.786 of 2018 (Mukeshbhai Mangaldas Deshani v. Hindustan Unilever PLC). The Court allowed Interim Application (L) No.10685 of 2026 in terms of prayer clause (a), permitting the Plaintiffs to destroy the infringing goods bearing counterfeit marks and artworks seized by the Court Receiver pursuant to the Court's order dated 5 March 2018 and lying in premises owned by the Applicant. The Respondents, though served with the interim order dated 5 March 2018, never entered appearance, and Defendant No.2 to the suit was reported to have passed away. With the destruction application allowed, nothing survived in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025, which was disposed of; the Applicant was left at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings seeking compensation as prayed for. Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated that an affidavit of compliance would be filed in the Registry after destruction of the goods.

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.03.30 17:26:20 +0530

1/2

12-IA-3228-25.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3228 OF 2025

IN

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.786 OF 2018

Mukeshbhai Mangaldas Deshani

...Applicant/Plaintiff

Versus

Hindustan Unilever PLC ...Defendant

Mr. Ashutosh Kane i/b W. S. Kane & Co. for Plaintiff.

Mr. Arun Upadhyay (through VC) for Defendant/Applicant in IA/3288 of 2025. Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to the Court Receiver present.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 25th MARCH 2026

P.C.

1 Interim application (L) No.10685 of 2026 is not on board. Mentioned.

Taken on board.

2 Heard Mr. Kane for the Applicant in Interim Application (L) No.10685 of

He invites my attention to prayer clause (a) which reads thus:

“(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an order permitting the Plaintiffs, to destroy the infringing goods bearing the counterfeit marks and artworks lying in the premises of the Applicant being Bungalow situated at Shivam Park, Plot No.82/1, Opposite Bungalow No.E10, Near Hanuman Temple, Aji Dem, Manda Doongar, Bhavnagar Main Road Village- RAjkot (Municipal Corporation) Rajkot 360003, which have been seized, and make the same available for trial.”

3 Having heard Mr. Kane and having perused the interim application, my

Meera Jadhav

2/2

12-IA-3228-25.DOC

view is that the same would have to be allowed essentially the interim application arises pursuant to an order dated 5th March 2018 passed by this Court, by which this Court had appointed the Court Receiver to seized the offending goods. The offending goods were loacted in a premises of which the Applicant in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025 is the owner. I am informed that Defendant No.2 to the suit has since passed away. Having noted the fact that Respondents despite having been served with the interim order dated 5 th March 2018 have never entered appearance, it would be appropriate to allow the Interim Application (L) No.10685 of 2026. the same is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a).

4 Having due regard to the fact that the present interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), nothing really survives in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025, the same is accordingly disposed of.

5 The Applicant in Interim Application No.3228 of 2025 is at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings seeking compensation as prayed for.

6 Mr. Kane fairly points out that after the goods are destroyed, he shall filed

an affidavit of compliance in the registry.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

Meera Jadhav