Allowed¶27

Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. Herman Jansen Beverages Nederland B v

Bombay HC16 Jan 2026IA/8209/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. Herman Jansen Beverages Netherland B. V.; additional written statement; belated filing; delay of almost eight years; amendment to plaint 2017; deed of assignment; 50% right title and interest; Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 added; costs Rs. 1,00,000/-; Tata Memorial Hospital; Commercial IP Suit No. 2 of 2009; Interim Application No. 8209 of 2026; Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.; Bombay High Court Commercial Division.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file the additional written statement, which is permitted to be taken on record subject to costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the Tata Memorial Hospital within 2 weeks. ¶27

Tilaknagar Industries Limited vs Herman Jansen Beverages Nederland B v — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

47-IA-8209-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8209 OF 2026 IN

¶4

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 2 OF 2009

¶5

Tilaknagar Industries Limited ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶6

Herman Jansen Beverages Netherland B. V. And Ors. ...Plaintiffs

¶7

Versus

¶8

Tilaknagar Industries Limited

¶9

...Defendant

¶10

Mr. Priyank Kapadia a/w Ms. Laxmi Jenkins, Ms. Sayali Shinde i/b LMJ Law Practice, for the Plaintiff.

¶11

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond a/w Mr. Rohan Kelkar, Mr. Ashwin Bhadang, Mr. Manvendra Kane, Mr. Ashutosh Kane, Ms. Vedangi Soman i/b W.S. Kane & Co., for the Defendant.

¶12

——————

¶13

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : April 29, 2026

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

1. Interim Application has been preferred seeking permission to file

¶16

additional written statement. It is contended that the Defendant had duly filed its written statement to the suit and had also filed its counter claim. By amendment to the plaint in the year 2017, it was contended that vide deed of assignment, Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 assigned 50% of the right, title and interest to the Plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4, who were then

¶17

added as co-Plaintiffs and consequential amendment was carried out.

¶18

2. Mr. Dhond would submit that the present additional written

¶19

¶20

Arya

¶21

47-IA-8209-2025.doc

¶22

statement is in response to the amendment which was carried out in the plaint. He would further submit that due to unavoidable circumstances, additional written statement could not be filed immediately after the amendment and has been filed belated.

¶23

3. Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel for the Defendant would oppose

¶24

the Application and would submit that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation for the delay of almost eight years in filing of the additional written statement, leave should be refused.

¶25

4. Additional written statement is filed to the amendment which was carried out by the Plaintiff. The right of the Defendant to file additional written statement cannot be denied, however, it is the aspect of delay which is significant in as much as after a period of almost eight years, the application had been taken out for filing the additional written statement. In my view, the interest of justice would be met by imposing cost for the delayed filing of the additional written statement.

¶26

5. In light of the above, additional written statement is permitted to be taken on record, subject to cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the Tata Memorial Hospital within a period of 2 weeks from today.

¶27

6. Interim Application is allowed in the above terms.

¶28

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

¶29

¶30

Arya

Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. Herman Jansen Beverages Nederland B v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tilaknagar Industries Limited v. Herman Jansen Beverages Nederland B v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rukhsana Rangwala and Anr. (Since Deceased) vs Abbasi Nuruddin Rangwala and 3 Ors.

The Supreme Industries Limited vs Narayan Chandra Das

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. vs Iheal Pharmaceutical

Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Rinkalben Kerulkumar Lukhi

Gogi Kaur Keer alias Daljit Tarvinder Keer vs Inderjeet Singh Amardeep Chadha

Energy Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Harshit Dhirubhai Aslaliya